Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: sams on February 03, 2011, 03:46:32 am

Title: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 03, 2011, 03:46:32 am
I left EFT two months ago because the old people love wasn't interesting, but the present arc is promising, since it will respond to the ''What AnCap do is Vampires disembark on Ceres'' ... but boat loads of UW troops are desembarking on Ceres ;D

This present Ceres with a fait accomplis ... this was a great UW cover up or someone should have suspect it

Great idea Scott and Biesser
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 03, 2011, 07:34:24 am
I left EFT two months ago because the old people love wasn't interesting, but the present arc is promising, since it will respond to the ''What AnCap do is Vampires disembark on Ceres'' ... but boat loads of UW troops are desembarking on Ceres ;D

This present Ceres with a fait accomplis ... this was a great UW cover up or someone should have suspect it

Great idea Scott and Biesser

Thanks. BTW, that would be Sandy and Scott...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Scott on February 03, 2011, 11:00:22 am
Quote
left EFT two months ago because the old people love wasn't interesting

You can't please everybody. However, the "old people love" arc will return in a few weeks and get more interesting. Patience is not only its own reward.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 03, 2011, 12:23:38 pm
Don't forget: the old often becomes new again (or in this case, young again)...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ZeissIkon on February 03, 2011, 02:44:37 pm
Going back to the beginning of "The Christmas War" -- did I read correctly that the Coal Mine Canaries bought the entire hotel -- as opposed to renting rooms?  I guess we know where the new barracks is going to be...   :P
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 03, 2011, 04:58:31 pm
I agree.  This new turn of events is very exciting.  I can't wait to see what happens.

I am curious as to how a trained army will fare against an armed populous like Ceres.

That has always seemed to me to be the one possible weakness of an ancap society.  Such a freewheeling culture, that lacks a top down command structure, might be vulnerable to better organized more aggressive outsiders.  We know little about Ceres’ military might but they don’t seem to have an army.

This reminds me of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."  I read it along time ago but when the Moon declared independence from Earth the Earth objected and used force.  The Moon had no army or weapons so they simply dropped a large rock on Earth from orbit as a warning.  The effect was like a nuclear bomb without the radiation.

Earth capitulated pretty quick.  I guess Ceres could do that same thing.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 03, 2011, 07:02:39 pm
I am curious as to how a trained army will fare against an armed populous like Ceres.

That has always seemed to me to be the one possible weakness of an ancap society.  Such a freewheeling culture, that lacks a top down command structure, might be vulnerable to better organized more aggressive outsiders.  We know little about Ceres’ military might but they don’t seem to have an army.
I enjoyed reading your question.  Too often, we hear questions like "What would an armed populous of a few thousand people with 19th century technology do against an attack by a million-man army equipped with nuclear weapons and dinosaurs?"

I don't know much about military matters, so I'll just mention a few generalities.  Top-down command is not necessarily a better organization (military or otherwise) than decentralization.  Each has strengths and weaknesses.

I assume that in the EFT universe, Earth's governments are similar to ours.  In particular, there will be government schools whose primary purpose is turning intelligent children into obedient citizens.  Without government schools, most people of Ceres will be better educated (and have much better critical thinking skills) than most people of Earth.  The government schools (if effective) should make the soldiers willing to die for the state, but the people of Ceres will be defending their homes and loved ones, which should compensate.  And there are advantages to being defenders with a detailed knowledge of the "terrain".

The Earth troops probably have significant military experience.  (Giving the bad guys at least one advantage makes a better story.)

Of course, this assumes that there will be a military battle.  We'll see.

This reminds me of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."  I read it along time ago but when the Moon declared independence from Earth the Earth objected and used force.  The Moon had no army or weapons so they simply dropped a large rock on Earth from orbit as a warning.  The effect was like a nuclear bomb without the radiation.

Earth capitulated pretty quick.  I guess Ceres could do that same thing.
There were many rocks (a significant fraction of them hitting the Earth before the major attack on the Moon), and Earth's capitulation occurred only after some political maneuvering (and plenty of suspense), but close enough.  Great fun (to read).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: wdg3rd on February 03, 2011, 07:51:15 pm

Earth capitulated pretty quick.  I guess Ceres could do that same thing.


Remember that there's no one on Ceres who can surrender for everyone else.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 03, 2011, 09:23:22 pm

I am curious as to how a trained army will fare against an armed populous like Ceres.

That has always seemed to me to be the one possible weakness of an ancap society.  Such a freewheeling culture, that lacks a top down command structure, might be vulnerable to better organized more aggressive outsiders.  We know little about Ceres’ military might but they don’t seem to have an army.

If Ceres doesn't have an army, what can a trained army do but stage an occupation?

If the AnCaps weren't very violent, I could easily imagine an occupation crumble. First they try to disarm the people, and a lot of the people they try to disarm shoot as many soldiers as they can before they are shot themselves. But the armed AnCaps don't cause much trouble. So the occupiers quickly decide not to disarm the public after all. Then some entrepreneurs point out that they can provide various supplies cheaper than the army can import them from Terra. Soon the army is dependent on the AnCap economy for their necessities.

Meanwhile, various guards etc keep getting opportunities to accept bribes from wealthy citizens who just want to do harmless things that involve getting past the guards. Quickly they find they make considerably more money from the bribes than from their military pay. Since there isn't much violence, soldiers are allowed leave time locally. Their pay doesn't go very far, but they can easily make enough money working for a day in AnCap society to provide a pretty good time. They see they could make far more money working for AnCaps than they could on Terra.

Terra wants revenue to pay for the occupation, but there's nobody collecting revenue. They try to take it off the most prosperous businesses. The businesses try to bribe the auditors.

Some soldiers go AWOL and the occupation army tries to catch them. They find it's much cheaper and more effective to pay professional skip-tracers to catch them. But then the skip-tracers get sued. "You gave my boyfriend to the army and he was paying half the rent!" The army finds that to keep the skip-tracers working they must allow arbitration.

"You signed a contract that you would be a soldier and then you walked out. Was that ethical?"
"They made me do it."
"Oh, that's different." Arbitrators tend to rule that it's OK to hunt down volunteers but not draftees.

I can imagine the whole thing slowly unraveling. The occupation does not produce a profit. It's hard to explain what good they are doing. AnCaps keep explaining to them that they aren't doing any good and keep suggesting better ways to achieve their stated goals. The AWOL rate keeps going up, and soldiers who get captured tell the MPs how much money they were making. Should desertion really be a capital offense when it isn't really a war zone and the whole exercise looks pointless?

They need to stir up fights with AnCaps to keep their morale up. If they can do that maybe they can hold out for a significant time. Convince enough AnCaps that they are cold-blooded baby-killers and maybe the jobs won't come through etc. But unless they can keep themselves from getting accepted by AnCap society, they will be assimilated as sure as the Borg.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 03, 2011, 11:08:46 pm
I have to make a spelling correction: the word you want in this context is "populace".

"Populous" is not a noun; it is an adjective.

Examples:

Los Angeles is a very populous city. ( It has a large population )

Los Angeles discourages private firearm use ( CCWs are almost impossible to obtain), and does not have an armed populace, but Pittsburgh does.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 04, 2011, 12:35:42 am
It certainly got off to an interesting start with a rather large understatement...

but then, apparently the armed infantry is not planning to immediately go around and try to massacre an armed citizenry. I suppose intimidation may be their goal.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 04, 2011, 03:05:44 am
Don't mistake potential order for no order at all.

We see spontaneous order all the time. If an asteroid quake happened and they lost pressure containment, a suitable organization would materialize, disease another, invasion by already somewhat low G acclimated troops from Luna, another.

Been a while for me too, as i recall there were 2 "infantry battles" in Mistress. One was against the Warden's security and Peace Dragoons, like UN peace keepers, as the revolution ramped up. It was a long slow escalation as they tried to control the uncontrollable who were not impressed. Then later there was massive street fighting in the warrens when real troops landed straight from Earth unacclimated and got creamed.

Maybe not Mistress at all, ever read Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear? 

But, but, these guys with rifles, what if they are not what they appear to be? I suppose they are but what if they are deserters, maybe going into business as mercenaries. Did someone hire them somehow? Are they just passing through?

If there is fighting it'll be that nasty house to house type and I suspect short ranged personal scale weapons will do just fine. Or Carlos can provide artillery support with that monster hog leg.

Good observation about critical thinking as a weapon.

Danged polite invaders.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Big.Swede on February 04, 2011, 03:38:23 am
Hmmm. I´m thinking this might even be more subtle than what you see at first glance. Not your average "occupation" attempt as it were. If it is, someone at HQ is so stupid it´s painfull.

I´m making the rest of the post in difficult to read colours intentionaly. It might contain spoilers with my musings and ideas, and i can´t find any "spoilers" button in the messages setting. You feel like reading them, just highlight and read. Ain´t i a considerate guy? :)

My theory is that they are there to do a 'peacfull' coup so to speak. Set up as a large "Merc Security" and offer guards at a discount. Get to be part of the background, and slowly get to be both the local "police" and even offer arbitration. I´m predicting an increase in minor crimes to drive up the interest for this new service, and thinking of it, that story arc with the mugger might have been a first dry run to see what kind of reaction to a string of crimes would be. It turned out to be a single guy with an interest. As for the "mine birds", they were first trying something similar, but it obviously didn´t work out as planned. So, plan B.

Then ever so slowly induce more and more Terra stuff, like an official claim agency, expertly backed by formerly mentioned police, and so on and so forth. And eventualy eventualy everyone is standing there going "Ok, how did this happen?" when someday years down the line normal Terran laws are suddenly a fact. Unlikely to work, yes. But still far more subtle and reasonable than a military occupation. That saying about the frog and the boiling water, if you know what i mean.

That is at least how i (if i wanted/had/whatever to) would try and "destabilize" an AnCap area.. or would that be "stabilize".... Ok, now i´m confusing myself even.   ;D

On the other hand, this is EFT so there might well be a some drooling incompetent in charge of this and it´s just an ocupation attempt, which will fail horrificly for a number of glaringly obvious reasons, two of which i can spot in an instant.

Preparations: Showing up an assload of troops like this is sure to set everyone on edge and start prepping for an eventual siege/occupation. So when it finaly starts they will not only be going up against an armed society, but one that has had days, weeks, months? to prepare. Basicly having to fight a guerilla warfare against superior numbered and supplied locals.

Supplies: Even if they take Ceres spaceport, how the heck are they expecting to get supplies in there? Huge bulk ships being easily intercepted by small mining pods with lasers and stakes. Heck, stakes retrofitted with mining nukes would make for some nasty anti-ship projectiles. Sure, they can use some local supplies, but eventualy they will run out of ammunition because the local manufacturers of their own caliber will just stop making them, possibly even wrecking the machinery needed. Logistics nightmare anyone? As for brining in more troops and stockpiling before going active, more barraks and storage will from now on will be harder to get as i seriously doubt the people of Cerese will be interested in selling. At least to them.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 04, 2011, 06:34:32 am
Hmmm. I´m thinking this might even be more subtle than what you see at first glance. Not your average "occupation" attempt as it were. If it is, someone at HQ is so stupid it´s painfull.

I´m making the rest of the post in difficult to read colours intentionaly. It might contain spoilers with my musings and ideas, and i can´t find any "spoilers" button in the messages setting. You feel like reading them, just highlight and read. Ain´t i a considerate guy? :)

Your plan is way elaborated, I believe any military commander will stick to the Standard Hitler Plan : Stage an incident, put the opinion in shock and proceed with overweening force to seize whatever you can.

The UW will try to have the Barracks attacked and responded with force to try to establish control ... but if they can manage to to land more shipload of troops, like some 100 000 unopposed then Ceres is over
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 04, 2011, 08:00:54 am
Maybe not Mistress at all, ever read Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear? 
Also great fun.  Not as exciting as Heinlein in my opinion, but what is?

But, but, these guys with rifles, what if they are not what they appear to be? I suppose they are but what if they are deserters, maybe going into business as mercenaries. Did someone hire them somehow? Are they just passing through?
I suspect you are right, that the trouble will be indirect.  Perhaps they will have a quarrel with someone else with the locals caught in the middle.  Or (my current bet) perhaps there will be incidents with the locals and the soldiers won't accept arbitration.

I have to make a spelling correction: the word you want in this context is "populace".
Thank you.  (I do know better.)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 04, 2011, 08:48:35 am
As Ceres has no government, and thus, no central power structure, any occupying force will have a hard time actually "occupying" Ceres, short of having at least one soldier per Ceresian, which would require a very large number of military forces.  They might easily occupy a portion of Ceres, but would have trouble expanding that occupation, especially if the Ceresians start giving them trouble over it.
Still, as much as an attempted military occupation seems the most likely action to me, the idea of a more indirect approach, by either or both sides, does sound intriguing.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 04, 2011, 09:22:36 am
Ireland held off the Brits for a thousand years; as others have observed, it is difficult to conquer an armed society which has no central ruling structure.

If this were an attempt to slowly subvert Ceres by offering mercenaries and arbitration services, wouldn't they be far more subtle, infiltrating by twos and threes, rather than by regiments?

I'm not surprised that the forces do not immediately begin hostilities. Yes, they'd catch people unaware at the spaceport - but they would not get much further; it might be possible for a few armed people to bottle them up at spaceport exits, until reinforcements arrive.

Deserters? Perhaps.

Recruiters?

I'm going to wait and see.
 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 04, 2011, 09:38:18 am
Don't sweat the spoilers, only the great Gawds of Ceres, you know who you are, can do that.

Another book along these lines to offer, The Moon is Down by some non SF writer type guy named Steinbeck. It is said to own a copy in occupied Europe would have cost you your life.

No pressure suits that I can see, don't leave home to pick a fight in space without one.

Lastly

Maybe they are assassins sent to kill everyone on Ceres, you know, Cereal killers
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: eli.civilunrest on February 04, 2011, 12:14:37 pm
I'm looking forward to seeing how effectively a mature AnCap society can help all those soldiers escape from terra.  I expect some rowdyness, but I'm hoping that Sandy and Scott show us that our system is not just more efficient (like in Heinlein's stories) but better.  I'm hoping that is why this arc started out with a demonstration of restraint.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: eli.civilunrest on February 04, 2011, 12:15:15 pm
And yeah, this arc is awesome.  Even the old people part  ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 04, 2011, 12:59:14 pm
And yeah, this arc is awesome.  Even the old people part  ;D

     “A man's only as old as the woman he feels.”
     -- Julius "Groucho" Marx (1890-1977)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 04, 2011, 06:43:18 pm
I see no patches on the soldiers other than one lightning bolt on each of the spokesman's collars. Is he a lieutenant? Harris' navy bunch had lots of them.

The boss guy has a grenade on his gear harness too, so much for precision specific target only weapons.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 04, 2011, 11:10:54 pm
I am not sure if this board considers is bad form to make guesses about the plot but I like to live dangerously so here is my prediction for this storyline.

I predict the Earth soldiers will move into the hotel and from there move on to take possession of large businesses and transportation hubs.  The army will simply announce that Ceres has been annexed/liberated by Earth and the people of Ceres have been "freed" from their evil rulers and will now be "protected" by EarthGov, for a fee/tax of about 90%.

The attack will be ham-fisted and incompetent but dangerous nonetheless.  Several solders will be killed by their own incompetence but so will some innocents on Ceres.

The citizens will respond with precision, first moving their vulnerable members to safety then counter attacking using guerilla tactics.  I expect explosions and sniping. 

The fighting will be desperate until help arrives from Mars in the form of the rejuvenated king and his wife.

Whatever happens I am sure it will be good.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 05, 2011, 12:26:30 pm
I note that the soldiers can march in light gravity without tripping each other.

I wonder where they practiced that?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 05, 2011, 04:25:07 pm
They did seem good at marching.  I wonder if that is meant as a hint of their martial ability or a hint that their reactions will be too regimented to be effective against free men.

It seems clearer than ever now that the girl at the bar was intent on provoking an incident.  This incident would be justification for Earth's intervention on Ceres.  Since no incident occurred what justification for the invasion will be asserted I wonder?

Anyway, I can't wait for Monday to see what happens.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 05, 2011, 04:35:08 pm
They did seem good at marching.  I wonder if that is meant as a hint of their martial ability or a hint that their reactions will be too regimented to be effective against free men.

It seems clearer than ever now that the girl at the bar was intent on provoking an incident.  This incident would be justification for Earth's intervention on Ceres.  Since no incident occurred what justification for the invasion will be asserted I wonder?

Anyway, I can't wait for Monday to see what happens.

You should read Irving Hitler's War first chapter, in it our little short crazy dictator raised more than 20 000 men for the sole tasks of provoking whole strings incidents before Munich and to invade Poland.

A Big Ceres anarchists attacks UW peacekeepers ! and you have more troops moving to attack Ceres and dispatched with what rest of the Terran fleet  ;D

Will they succeed ? I don't think so, Ceres anarchy rests on the harmonic balance of Non-agression, arbitration and mutual respect. Having the troops Violate the first, then refuse arbitration and the whole of Ceres would move against them ... if they don't then anarchy will die
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 05, 2011, 07:26:49 pm
Remember when Libby said she was meeting a fast burner from Luna, the ship with the troops aboard? Is that where they practiced marching?

UW peacekeepers? They look to be in an army, yes but is it for sure the UW's? Again no unit patches on the spokesman, not even a merit badge. Why?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 05, 2011, 07:28:59 pm
"Ceres anarchy rests on the harmonic balance of Non-agression, arbitration and mutual respect. Having the troops Violate the first, then refuse arbitration and the whole of Ceres would move against them ... if they don't then anarchy will die"

The writer might agree with you and make this happen but in the real world would a small anarchy be able to withstand a concerted military action by a more traditional government?  I don't know but I fear they would not.

I think plotting a successful defence of Ceres in a reasonable and believable way will be the author's biggest challenge yet.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 05, 2011, 07:53:25 pm
Aggression?

So far I hear a lot of please and thank you from their leader.

Scary stuff indeed.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 05, 2011, 09:27:49 pm
I assume that in the EFT universe, Earth's governments are similar to ours.  In particular, there will be government schools whose primary purpose is turning intelligent children into obedient citizens.  Without government schools, most people of Ceres will be better educated (and have much better critical thinking skills) than most people of Earth.  The government schools (if effective) should make the soldiers willing to die for the state, but the people of Ceres will be defending their homes and loved ones, which should compensate.  And there are advantages to being defenders with a detailed knowledge of the "terrain".

Oh wow. Is that what schools in the USA are like?
Fuck me sideways I am so glad I don't live in a shit heap like that.
I mean seriously now, find me a normal school that sets out to do what you're saying there. I know British ones don't as not once have I had a "WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE!" statement thrown out in the classroom by the teacher. Hell not even when I was at a school paid for and ran by the DoD for their families (back when my father was on a Germany tour).

As Ceres has no government, and thus, no central power structure, any occupying force will have a hard time actually "occupying" Ceres, short of having at least one soldier per Ceresian, which would require a very large number of military forces.  They might easily occupy a portion of Ceres, but would have trouble expanding that occupation, especially if the Ceresians start giving them trouble over it.
Still, as much as an attempted military occupation seems the most likely action to me, the idea of a more indirect approach, by either or both sides, does sound intriguing.



Oooor they could just go "Right enough is enough. MEN! SUITS ON!" and then they pop a few environment seals and let the anarchists all die. After that it's a simple sweep job followed by repairs and bringing in new colonists. After all they obviously don't want the people.

I am not sure if this board considers is bad form to make guesses about the plot but I like to live dangerously so here is my prediction for this storyline.

I predict the Earth soldiers will move into the hotel and from there move on to take possession of large businesses and transportation hubs.  The army will simply announce that Ceres has been annexed/liberated by Earth and the people of Ceres have been "freed" from their evil rulers and will now be "protected" by EarthGov, for a fee/tax of about 90%.

The attack will be ham-fisted and incompetent but dangerous nonetheless.  Several solders will be killed by their own incompetence but so will some innocents on Ceres.

The citizens will respond with precision, first moving their vulnerable members to safety then counter attacking using guerilla tactics.  I expect explosions and sniping. 

The fighting will be desperate until help arrives from Mars in the form of the rejuvenated king and his wife.

Whatever happens I am sure it will be good.


If that happens I will set out to purchase "Big Head Press" and rename it to "Anarchists dissociated from reality Press".
Seriously that would be incredibly shit tier. About as believable as any propaganda piece.

The writer might agree with you and make this happen but in the real world would a small anarchy be able to withstand a concerted military action by a more traditional government?  I don't know but I fear they would not.

I think plotting a successful defence of Ceres in a reasonable and believable way will be the author's biggest challenge yet.

Firstly I doubt any small anarchist society would be able to survive if it was in competition with any form of state. Even a big one would only survive for a while. A state fulfils certain needs for people that aren't fulfilled in an anarchist society. Over time the anarchist society will bleed people to the state society (barring it's some kind of insane society where Hitler clones run around eating babies and raping kittens) and the state society will slowly expand, pushing the anarchists out of their territory.

I honestly don't have high expectations for the author's ability to step up to that challenge. It's going to be bad. It's going to rely mostly on them being incompetent buffoons who shouldn't even have been able to survive their first use of a zero-G toilet without drowning let alone become anything resembling proficient with any form of weapon or sharp implement.


Aggression?

So far I hear a lot of please and thank you from their leader.

Scary stuff indeed.

Time will tell.

Yeah you'd be surprised how most military folk have good manners.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 05, 2011, 09:49:25 pm
As to military manners, less surprised than you might think. The point here was they don't act like an invading army, not yet anyway. This is no blitzkreig.

And the idea of the majority prefering statism is flawed. Given 2 regions, one anarchist and one regimented and free access across the border, both would bleed people and for the best.

Me, I grew up in a big city but now live in a small town. One could say the city bled me cause I ain't never going back to that hive. Yet I have family there who would hate to live where and as I do.

Given a thousand regions and free access, a thousand different "types" would self select and live as they like surrounded by their sort, whatever the hell that may be. Some call it freedom.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 06, 2011, 03:10:03 am
I assume that in the EFT universe, Earth's governments are similar to ours.  In particular, there will be government schools whose primary purpose is turning intelligent children into obedient citizens.  Without government schools, most people of Ceres will be better educated (and have much better critical thinking skills) than most people of Earth.  The government schools (if effective) should make the soldiers willing to die for the state, but the people of Ceres will be defending their homes and loved ones, which should compensate.  And there are advantages to being defenders with a detailed knowledge of the "terrain".

Oh wow. Is that what schools in the USA are like?
frack me sideways I am so glad I don't live in a shit heap like that.
I mean seriously now, find me a normal school that sets out to do what you're saying there. I know British ones don't as not once have I had a "WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE!" statement thrown out in the classroom by the teacher. Hell not even when I was at a school paid for and ran by the DoD for their families (back when my father was on a Germany tour).

As Ceres has no government, and thus, no central power structure, any occupying force will have a hard time actually "occupying" Ceres, short of having at least one soldier per Ceresian, which would require a very large number of military forces.  They might easily occupy a portion of Ceres, but would have trouble expanding that occupation, especially if the Ceresians start giving them trouble over it.
Still, as much as an attempted military occupation seems the most likely action to me, the idea of a more indirect approach, by either or both sides, does sound intriguing.



Oooor they could just go "Right enough is enough. MEN! SUITS ON!" and then they pop a few environment seals and let the anarchists all die. After that it's a simple sweep job followed by repairs and bringing in new colonists. After all they obviously don't want the people.

I am not sure if this board considers is bad form to make guesses about the plot but I like to live dangerously so here is my prediction for this storyline.

I predict the Earth soldiers will move into the hotel and from there move on to take possession of large businesses and transportation hubs.  The army will simply announce that Ceres has been annexed/liberated by Earth and the people of Ceres have been "freed" from their evil rulers and will now be "protected" by EarthGov, for a fee/tax of about 90%.

The attack will be ham-fisted and incompetent but dangerous nonetheless.  Several solders will be killed by their own incompetence but so will some innocents on Ceres.

The citizens will respond with precision, first moving their vulnerable members to safety then counter attacking using guerilla tactics.  I expect explosions and sniping. 

The fighting will be desperate until help arrives from Mars in the form of the rejuvenated king and his wife.

Whatever happens I am sure it will be good.


If that happens I will set out to purchase "Big Head Press" and rename it to "Anarchists dissociated from reality Press".
Seriously that would be incredibly shit tier. About as believable as any propaganda piece.

The writer might agree with you and make this happen but in the real world would a small anarchy be able to withstand a concerted military action by a more traditional government?  I don't know but I fear they would not.

I think plotting a successful defence of Ceres in a reasonable and believable way will be the author's biggest challenge yet.

Firstly I doubt any small anarchist society would be able to survive if it was in competition with any form of state. Even a big one would only survive for a while. A state fulfils certain needs for people that aren't fulfilled in an anarchist society. Over time the anarchist society will bleed people to the state society (barring it's some kind of insane society where Hitler clones run around eating babies and raping kittens) and the state society will slowly expand, pushing the anarchists out of their territory.

I honestly don't have high expectations for the author's ability to step up to that challenge. It's going to be bad. It's going to rely mostly on them being incompetent buffoons who shouldn't even have been able to survive their first use of a zero-G toilet without drowning let alone become anything resembling proficient with any form of weapon or sharp implement.


Aggression?

So far I hear a lot of please and thank you from their leader.

Scary stuff indeed.

Time will tell.

Yeah you'd be surprised how most military folk have good manners.


I have something to tell you : Something to Lose

When a scheme of power try to impose itself over others there is always someone who have something to lose and those people will fight back.

In an anarchist society there might not be one central centre of power, but there are at least some hundreds centre of power, being it wealthy people and such who have something to loose.

Lets take the example of the US, the congress and Presidency are the centre of power, but there are in the civil society more centres of power, who when combined many times decide who is going to get control of the top position. In comparison Nazi Germany had only one centre of power ... an Anarchy would be like like the US on steroids, the only question is how powerful all the centre of power are.

If you had read the previous arcs you would see that Reggie King is very rich to the point of having bough a warship and that many on Ceres are shareholders of very wealthy ventures ... have all these people fear to lose something and they might engage in action.

Hey how are those insurrections in Irak and Afganistan going Mr Military ? AFAIK the US only way not to get creamed there was to entice a centre of power to be on their side in Irak and in Afghanistan they failed to get the right natives ... same principle applies in EFT
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 06, 2011, 09:02:07 am
I have something to tell you : Something to Lose

When a scheme of power try to impose itself over others there is always someone who have something to lose and those people will fight back.

In an anarchist society there might not be one central centre of power, but there are at least some hundreds centre of power, being it wealthy people and such who have something to loose.

Lets take the example of the US, the congress and Presidency are the centre of power, but there are in the civil society more centres of power, who when combined many times decide who is going to get control of the top position. In comparison Nazi Germany had only one centre of power ... an Anarchy would be like like the US on steroids, the only question is how powerful all the centre of power are.

If you had read the previous arcs you would see that Reggie King is very rich to the point of having bough a warship and that many on Ceres are shareholders of very wealthy ventures ... have all these people fear to lose something and they might engage in action.

Hey how are those insurrections in Irak and Afganistan going Mr Military ? AFAIK the US only way not to get creamed there was to entice a centre of power to be on their side in Irak and in Afghanistan they failed to get the right natives ... same principle applies in EFT

The majority however will not be wealthy. Such is the way of capitalism. For someone to be wealthy many others must not be.

Also remember that quite a few of these "centers of power" will try to reach a compromise/deal with the invading state, probably selling out the others in return for more power or simple survival. Then you will have the non-wealthy to contend with who will probably use the chaos as an excuse to get revenge on the wealthy who have exploited them (again woo capitalism).
Also outnumbered, the ones who decide to fight will be massively outnumbered and may not even have popular support. I doubt Reggie will find support among the common workers considering his wealth. The bottom rungs of Ceres (inevitably the most numerous) would probably support a takeover in the event it happened as the invaders would be bringing improvements in their living conditions. The middle and upper class of Ceres however would be firmly against it as they have something to loose, but history shows you can't have a rebellion without the workers on your side.
Every government strives to appease or control the workers for the simple reason that they need them. Without the worker they have nothing except for a bunch of soft cunts who can't handle anything more strenuous than typing.

As for the Iraq situation. They're not fighting to be anarchists. They're fighting for their society, way of life, to be free of the USA, etc.
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 06, 2011, 09:45:13 am
Quote
Oh wow. Is that what schools in the USA are like?

Yes. 

Quote
not once have I had a "WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE!" statement thrown out in the classroom by the teacher.

Well, you've already made it brilliantly clear that subtlety is lost on you;  apparently such a blatant statement, preferably shouted, is the only one you would notice in any case.  But whether we like it or not, people perceive, and are highly influenced by, such tiny things as, say, a mere hint of a smirk on the teacher's face when ostensibly objectively describing another nation or people.

You -- you, personally, I mean -- would be exceptionally easy to manipulate, to the exact degree that you deny the very existence of subtle manipulators (people or techniques).

Quote
The majority however will not be wealthy.

"Wealthy" was just a for-instance.  The majority will have a sense of "home", of community -- sheer territoriality, if you like.  This particular human, writing now, thinks that's worth fighting in defense of; "home" is very much "something to lose".  You mean you don't?

Quote
quite a few of these "centers of power" will try to reach a compromise/deal with the invading state, probably selling out the others in return for more power or simple survival.

A possibility, certainly, as Ireland found to its loss, but it's hardly inevitable.  It will also be the case that, with the locals fighting for home, even children will be threats and the invading soldiers will be forced to kill some smiling, rosy-cheeked little kids -- and unless you've bioengineered and/or drugged your troops till they are no longer human, no amount of "I had to do it to save my buddies" will wholly wash away that very human guilt and shame.  So as long as we're tallying informers and turncoats on the invaders' side of the ledger, we have to tally suicide and fragging (among the invaders) on the defenders' side.

Quote
The bottom rungs of Ceres (inevitably the most numerous) would probably support a takeover in the event it happened as the invaders would be bringing improvements in their living conditions.

That, I think, is more common among the wealthy, who promise aid (and mucho dinero) to the invaders in return for having their property respected.  The "bottom rungs" don't have much to offer in that way. Besides, on the whole, humans tend to prefer "the devil we know to the devil we don't".  Bear in mind, the "bottom rungs" on Ceres know, from lots of examples in front of them, that they've got a chance to become as rich as Reggie -- and most of them also probably know, maybe even from personal experience, that the UW government intends to take as big a chunk of that wealth for itself as it can.  On Terra, if you weren't born to a rich family, you probably don't have a chance to become one (without prostituting yourself to the wealthy few).

Quote
As for the Iraq situation. They're not fighting to be anarchists. They're fighting for their society, way of life, to be free of the USA, etc.

And you think anarchists would not fight for their society, way of life, to be free of Terra, etc.?  Oh, wait, that's right -- you think "anarchy" means "no society".

Quote
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.

Feh.  Either one is merely a Romanization of a non-Romanesque sound.  I'd take you a bit more seriously if you learned what anarchy is, and went with that, instead of using straw men.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 09:55:02 am
I assume that in the EFT universe, Earth's governments are similar to ours.  In particular, there will be government schools whose primary purpose is turning intelligent children into obedient citizens.  Without government schools, most people of Ceres will be better educated (and have much better critical thinking skills) than most people of Earth.  The government schools (if effective) should make the soldiers willing to die for the state, but the people of Ceres will be defending their homes and loved ones, which should compensate.  And there are advantages to being defenders with a detailed knowledge of the "terrain".

Oh wow. Is that what schools in the USA are like?
frack me sideways I am so glad I don't live in a shit heap like that.

He gave one interpretation of how it works, and from my experience his interpretation is not contradicted by the facts although there are other ways to look at it.

My daughters got a lot of operant conditioning in the first couple of years. The students got rewarded for staying in their seats and not causing disturbances and obeying simple commands. At first it was direct rewards like candy, then it switched to green slips that they could stockpile and weekly turn in for badges and cheap toys. The kid who got too man red slips was in trouble and my youngest daughter talked about him, she was proud that she'd only gotten two red slips total, one when another kid tried to talk to her in class and one when she dropped her books.

The smartest 10% of the students according to standardized tests get to go to special schools where they supposedly learn more. My sister's son did that and hated it. They got a whole lot of material and a couple hours homework every night. My kids didn't want to go, they wanted to stay with their friends, so they got put in an alternate program where every week or two somebody comes to their school to teach them critical thinking skills. I have reviewed the material they bring home from that. So far it looks basicly competent but the pace is very slow. She teaches them that categories are things they get to choose for their own needs and apply to the world, and that names reflect the categories they choose. My thought is that the other 90% need that lesson more than the ones who get it, but on the other hand these are the ones whose parents will be most tolerant of it.

Quote
Oooor they could just go "Right enough is enough. MEN! SUITS ON!" and then they pop a few environment seals and let the anarchists all die. After that it's a simple sweep job followed by repairs and bringing in new colonists. After all they obviously don't want the people.

They could do tremendous damage that way, but they wouldn't nearly kill everybody. Lots of people on Ceres have pressure suits and would be using them for their work. And there are lots more people on ships and other places. If Ceres didn't function it would take a long time for the others to die from lack of things they get from Ceres, and in the short run they would be extremely dangerous. I don't recall how spaceship engines work in this story, but isn't it plausible they would be nuclear engines that might convert to hydrogen bombs? Get a lot of people who know they're doomed and who might want revenge before they die and you don't want to be living in their enemy's capital city.

If government troops could plant an intelligent minefield all over Ceres that could be a useful threat. Each mine would report its capability and report if someone tried to tamper with it, and given the order they would blow all the seals at once.  But it isn't something to do unless things have gone so wrong there's no better choice. "Don't kill us all or we'll hurt you back."

Quote
The writer might agree with you and make this happen but in the real world would a small anarchy be able to withstand a concerted military action by a more traditional government?  I don't know but I fear they would not.

I think plotting a successful defence of Ceres in a reasonable and believable way will be the author's biggest challenge yet.

Firstly I doubt any small anarchist society would be able to survive if it was in competition with any form of state. Even a big one would only survive for a while. A state fulfils certain needs for people that aren't fulfilled in an anarchist society.

Since we don't have any anarchist societies to compare against, this is sheer speculation. We can make predictions about what an anarchist society would have to be like, but without examples we're just guessing.

Quote
Over time the anarchist society will bleed people to the state society (barring it's some kind of insane society where Hitler clones run around eating babies and raping kittens) and the state society will slowly expand, pushing the anarchists out of their territory.

I could easily imagine it the other way round. A state society that could cheaply export criminals to the anarchists might prefer to do that to keeping them imprisoned. Cheaper that way. And if they have high unemployment, they would be glad to ship excess people out -- provided it doesn't cost too much. And political dissidents, including anarchists. The kicker is Terra's gravity well. At $10,000/pound it costs way too much and you might as well gold-plate anything you send up. At $100/pound it's still pretty expensive. Get a cheap way to export people and governments might send them out at a pretty good clip. They might send out emigrants faster than the anarchists can expand to provide for them. That would be bad, but what do you do?

"No, we aren't taking any more colonists this year."
"Then we'll dump them out the airlock and you can clean up later."

It's predictable that a state would try to expand. And as we have seen in the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, if you can control the cities everything else will fall into line. So it's only reasonable that a government would try to control Ceres first, and then expand control to all the mining claims etc. Can they do it? Well, can they do it physically? They might simply not have the logistics. That can happen but it doesn't tell the story I want to hear. Can they do it psychologically? Can the anarchists do what it takes to stay free, even when it might appear more profitable or safer to cave in? Can the soldiers maintain their morale when it's completely clear they are doing evil and that they can have great lives as anarchists instead? Etc.

Quote
I honestly don't have high expectations for the author's ability to step up to that challenge. It's going to be bad. It's going to rely mostly on them being incompetent buffoons who shouldn't even have been able to survive their first use of a zero-G toilet without drowning let alone become anything resembling proficient with any form of weapon or sharp implement.

We can wait and see. At the beginning of the story he presented a cartoon nanny state society, where it seemed everybody was afraid to break the law but it was all punishment, no reward. There was no particular reason for him to make the nanny-state realistic, because it was only the launching-point to get to the AnCap society. So that doesn't at all imply he'd make the invading army incompetent, except of course that they will be hampered by incompetent orders from home, as most invading armies have been since the invention of the telegraph at least.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Big.Swede on February 06, 2011, 10:06:26 am
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.

Spelling is dependant of language. In sweden, for example, it is spelled Irak. Now i know it is spelled Iraq in English, but i´m fairly well versed in my second language. (With some spelling errors i admit.) But i have full understanding for perhaps falling back to native langauge spelling if they are unsure.

Do you know what native language Sams has? I don´t. So what you did was pretty much the equailent of me complaining on you for spelling Smorgasbord without the propper Ö rather than O, which is pretty much pointless. (Will be interesting to see if the forum can handle that very Swedish letter. :) )
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 06, 2011, 10:26:00 am
He gave one interpretation of how it works, and from my experience his interpretation is not contradicted by the facts although there are other ways to look at it.

My daughters got a lot of operant conditioning in the first couple of years. The students got rewarded for staying in their seats and not causing disturbances and obeying simple commands. At first it was direct rewards like candy, then it switched to green slips that they could stockpile and weekly turn in for badges and cheap toys. The kid who got too man red slips was in trouble and my youngest daughter talked about him, she was proud that she'd only gotten two red slips total, one when another kid tried to talk to her in class and one when she dropped her books.

The smartest 10% of the students according to standardized tests get to go to special schools where they supposedly learn more. My sister's son did that and hated it. They got a whole lot of material and a couple hours homework every night. My kids didn't want to go, they wanted to stay with their friends, so they got put in an alternate program where every week or two somebody comes to their school to teach them critical thinking skills. I have reviewed the material they bring home from that. So far it looks basicly competent but the pace is very slow. She teaches them that categories are things they get to choose for their own needs and apply to the world, and that names reflect the categories they choose. My thought is that the other 90% need that lesson more than the ones who get it, but on the other hand these are the ones whose parents will be most tolerant of it.

Making sure children behave in school isn't a bad thing you know? Even when education was the sole preserve of the wealthy who could afford to hire some educated fellow to teach their children, this tutor would still have to spend a lot of time and effort making sure the children behaved. Why? Because children won't sit still and listen unless you either make them or get their attention.

As for the extra classes, such is education in our world. You can say by all means try to teach everyone the extra stuff but they won't all be able to understand it. Some simply are incapable while others the amount of time expended on helping them wouldn't be worth it or would leave them far behind everyone else. Plus like you mentioned in more puritan areas you'd have parental backlash.

They could do tremendous damage that way, but they wouldn't nearly kill everybody. Lots of people on Ceres have pressure suits and would be using them for their work. And there are lots more people on ships and other places. If Ceres didn't function it would take a long time for the others to die from lack of things they get from Ceres, and in the short run they would be extremely dangerous. I don't recall how spaceship engines work in this story, but isn't it plausible they would be nuclear engines that might convert to hydrogen bombs? Get a lot of people who know they're doomed and who might want revenge before they die and you don't want to be living in their enemy's capital city.

Honestly I think they'd get more than you think. The main city the story seems to center on has very few people in any form of suits and little in the way of sealed sections. Some would survive but with the environmental systems cut off they'd die off in short order. The people in the city itself would be fucked. Miners out in the middle of nowhere would come back to find the place taken over or they'd die sitting out there until their supplies run out. The spaceport would need to be secured yes but that's about it really.


Since we don't have any anarchist societies to compare against, this is sheer speculation. We can make predictions about what an anarchist society would have to be like, but without examples we're just guessing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities

Aren't I nice to you folks? A never ending font of knowledge it seems.
Funny thing about a lot of those listed though. Despite being "anarchists" they end up holding elections and choosing leaders. Cue the no true scotsman argument.


I could easily imagine it the other way round. A state society that could cheaply export criminals to the anarchists might prefer to do that to keeping them imprisoned. Cheaper that way. And if they have high unemployment, they would be glad to ship excess people out -- provided it doesn't cost too much. And political dissidents, including anarchists. The kicker is Terra's gravity well. At $10,000/pound it costs way too much and you might as well gold-plate anything you send up. At $100/pound it's still pretty expensive. Get a cheap way to export people and governments might send them out at a pretty good clip. They might send out emigrants faster than the anarchists can expand to provide for them. That would be bad, but what do you do?

"No, we aren't taking any more colonists this year."
"Then we'll dump them out the airlock and you can clean up later."


Good point. After all what better way to take over than to simply flood the opponents homes with your people. After a while they become the majority and you can simply walk in unopposed.

We can wait and see. At the beginning of the story he presented a cartoon nanny state society, where it seemed everybody was afraid to break the law but it was all punishment, no reward. There was no particular reason for him to make the nanny-state realistic, because it was only the launching-point to get to the AnCap society. So that doesn't at all imply he'd make the invading army incompetent, except of course that they will be hampered by incompetent orders from home, as most invading armies have been since the invention of the telegraph at least.

It's one of the things I really do hate about EFT and a lot of the stuff BHP put out in general. They're not very good at writing opponents or questioning the ideology they've set out to endorse. It's as if they are absolutely incapable of any form of perspective-taking, or if they are it's stunted. Insofar I don't think we've seen anyone who he's writing as "the bad guy" who isn't some variation on an idiot. Seems only anarchists get to be cool or intelligent or competent at anything.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 10:32:09 am

The majority however will not be wealthy. Such is the way of capitalism. For someone to be wealthy many others must not be.

That doesn't even take capitalism. It comes from the meaning of "wealthy".

Quote
Also remember that quite a few of these "centers of power" will try to reach a compromise/deal with the invading state, probably selling out the others in return for more power or simple survival.

That depends on how well the invaders do at finding those people and negotiating with them. Sometimes it takes a long time. 140 footsoldiers are not likely to do much of that. So now, how much does it look like the first 4 were supposed to start an incident, and the government announces that it's sending in soldiers as a response to the provocation? To protect the sanctity of Terran feminists, say?

Quote
Then you will have the non-wealthy to contend with who will probably use the chaos as an excuse to get revenge on the wealthy who have exploited them (again woo capitalism).

That's possible. On the other hand, what if the non-wealthy don't feel exploited? If there's a labor shortage and plenty of everything but labor, there could be plenty of rich people who provide grubstakes at reasonable rates, and then with hard work the new people get rich enough to themselves extend grubstakes. When there's more than enough of everything to go around -- except labor -- why would anybody feel exploited? With a labor surplus you take a bad deal because it's the best you can do, and you have a choice between gratitude for getting the grinding low-wage job when others get nothing, or you can feel exploited because you got a bad deal. With a labor shortage you don't need to take a bad deal -- take the best deal you can get and it will be pretty good.

Quote
Also outnumbered, the ones who decide to fight will be massively outnumbered and may not even have popular support.

The devil is in the details. If the soldiers don't do anything outrageous, a lot of people will mind their own business. If the soldiers get a lot of people upset at them, people will cheer the guys who shoot them and might give them that ultimate praise -- money. Etc. I don't know what will happen in the story.

Quote
I doubt Reggie will find support among the common workers considering his wealth. The bottom rungs of Ceres (inevitably the most numerous)

Whoah. In third world nations the bottom rungs are the most numerous. For a reasonable time the USA had a middle-class society where the bottom rungs were not the most numerous at all. It's only as we slip toward third-world status that the middle class slides toward poverty. Would a hypothetical AnCap society have a lot of poor people or a lot of middle-class? I dunno. If the society was expanding fast with immigration, they might have a lot of poor people who would each become middle-class within 20 years or less, to be replaced by even more immigrants. That wouldn't leave poor people upset at Reggie.

Quote
would probably support a takeover in the event it happened as the invaders would be bringing improvements in their living conditions. The middle and upper class of Ceres however would be firmly against it as they have something to loose, but history shows you can't have a rebellion without the workers on your side.

Old history might not apply. In the USA "workers" are dwindling away, leaving us with a gap between the chronicly unemployed and the middle-class white-collar workers. I don't know how it would be in an AnCap society, or this AnCap society in particular.

Quote
Every government strives to appease or control the workers for the simple reason that they need them. Without the worker they have nothing except for a bunch of soft cunts who can't handle anything more strenuous than typing.

Again, that's kind of outdated. More and more the US government depends on white-collar workers who work out in their spare time, and also ex-prisoners who worked out in their copious spare time.

Quote
As for the Iraq situation. They're not fighting to be anarchists. They're fighting for their society, way of life, to be free of the USA, etc.
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.

So an invading army would need to persuade people that their society and way of life were not under threat, and they would be free of the government?

I can't take the spelling too seriously. I have a little more confidence in people talking about Iraq when they can find it on a map, but really the map isn't so important if they aren't going there. And it doesn't matter whether they say Eye-rack or Eee-Rock either. That only tells you who they listen to.

Somebody who seems clueless ten times in a row might have just the insight you need at number eleven. So if you're going to pay attention to them at all you might as well consider each idea on its own merit.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 06, 2011, 11:06:47 am

The majority however will not be wealthy. Such is the way of capitalism. For someone to be wealthy many others must not be.

lol what ? Sorry you would be right if there was a fixated quantity of wealth which must be divided by someone ... but in real life wealth is created, therefore your afirmation is wrong.

For some to be wealthy doesn't depend on many others not being.

Also remember that quite a few of these "centers of power" will try to reach a compromise/deal with the invading state, probably selling out the others in return for more power or simple survival.

I don't need to remenber, I have read The Prince of Maquiaveli, which is a short guide of how going about conquering and subjugating people ... after all only an idiot would invade a country without having an internal centre of power collaborating with him.

Then you will have the non-wealthy to contend with who will probably use the chaos as an excuse to get revenge on the wealthy who have exploited them (again woo capitalism).
Also outnumbered, the ones who decide to fight will be massively outnumbered and may not even have popular support. I doubt Reggie will find support among the common workers considering his wealth. The bottom rungs of Ceres (inevitably the most numerous) would probably support a takeover in the event it happened as the invaders would be bringing improvements in their living conditions. The middle and upper class of Ceres however would be firmly against it as they have something to loose, but history shows you can't have a rebellion without the workers on your side.

Pure Marxist gibberish, sorry mate but wealth is created, there is no fixed quantity of it ... since that bitch called Marx started weeping to this day wealth increased exponentially.

The concept of exploitation you raise is based on the flawed and stupid concept of Marxian value, which is false. So is the concept of class you raise, which is also false.

Revise your concepts and then try making an argument with valid basis ... The whole class warfare gibberish is simply false.

Every government strives to appease or control the workers for the simple reason that they need them. Without the worker they have nothing except for a bunch of soft cunts who can't handle anything more strenuous than typing.

Every government don't give a damn about ''the worker'', what they need is a mob to lob at the producers ... like Stalin used to do : Beware Comrad, I'm the only one between you and the pitch forks.

As for the Iraq situation. They're not fighting to be anarchists. They're fighting for their society, way of life, to be free of the USA, etc.
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.

Completly beside the point, which is that without the support of a faction within Irak, the Americans would have simply lost the war by exhaustion ... independently of what they are fighting for.

I'd take you a bit more seriously if you could actually spell Iraq.

I speak Portuguese and French, being that some words with equal pronunciation sometimes prompted incidents of cross language writing  ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 11:16:37 am

Making sure children behave in school isn't a bad thing you know?

Sure, and treating the kids like lab rats or pigeons to do it may seem a little creepy but it works efficiently.

Quote
As for the extra classes, such is education in our world. You can say by all means try to teach everyone the extra stuff but they won't all be able to understand it.

I'd prefer the smart kids get taught to find general principles than just bury them in facts. If you want to choose which kids to bury in detail then don't use intelligence tests to choose them, use a test that picks the kids who're good at that.

Quote
Some simply are incapable while others the amount of time expended on helping them wouldn't be worth it or would leave them far behind everyone else. Plus like you mentioned in more puritan areas you'd have parental backlash.

Even in liberal places the lower classes tend to be raised more authoritarian, and hate to hear their kids do critical thinking.

Quote
They could do tremendous damage that way, but they wouldn't nearly kill everybody. Lots of people on Ceres have pressure suits and would be using them for their work. And there are lots more people on ships and other places. If Ceres didn't function it would take a long time for the others to die from lack of things they get from Ceres, and in the short run they would be extremely dangerous. I don't recall how spaceship engines work in this story, but isn't it plausible they would be nuclear engines that might convert to hydrogen bombs? Get a lot of people who know they're doomed and who might want revenge before they die and you don't want to be living in their enemy's capital city.

Honestly I think they'd get more than you think. The main city the story seems to center on has very few people in any form of suits and little in the way of sealed sections.

What do you base that on? It makes sense to me that it would be divided into lots of sections that could be shut off from each other easily. First because it makes obvious engineering sense, and obvious economic sense. If nothing else, if you can't keep sections closed off how can you meter the air and charge neighborhoods for it? But that hasn't been important to the story so far. Are individual homes and apartments arranged to self-seal during a pressure drop? Do they have emergency air supply? How would we know?

Quote
Some would survive but with the environmental systems cut off they'd die off in short order. The people in the city itself would be fracked. Miners out in the middle of nowhere would come back to find the place taken over or they'd die sitting out there until their supplies run out. The spaceport would need to be secured yes but that's about it really.

Remember that they have instantaneous tanglenet communication. If somebody kills off Ceres everybody in the Belt will know within about 8 hours, as soon as the soundest sleepers wake up. I doubt they'd take it kindly. So it looks to me like a threat of last resort. In the story there's a tremendous investment in the Belt which is paying off at a high rate. Terra would strongly prefer to control that investment, not destroy it.

Quote
Since we don't have any anarchist societies to compare against, this is sheer speculation. We can make predictions about what an anarchist society would have to be like, but without examples we're just guessing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities

Funny thing about a lot of those listed though. Despite being "anarchists" they end up holding elections and choosing leaders. Cue the no true scotsman argument.

Yes, No True Scotsman. I have trouble taking Iceland seriously when more than half the population was enslaved. Most of the rest were started and existed in warzones.

Quote
I could easily imagine it the other way round. A state society that could cheaply export criminals to the anarchists might prefer to do that to keeping them imprisoned. Cheaper that way. And if they have high unemployment, they would be glad to ship excess people out -- provided it doesn't cost too much. And political dissidents, including anarchists. The kicker is Terra's gravity well. At $10,000/pound it costs way too much and you might as well gold-plate anything you send up. At $100/pound it's still pretty expensive. Get a cheap way to export people and governments might send them out at a pretty good clip. They might send out emigrants faster than the anarchists can expand to provide for them. That would be bad, but what do you do?

"No, we aren't taking any more colonists this year."
"Then we'll dump them out the airlock and you can clean up later."


Good point. After all what better way to take over than to simply flood the opponents homes with your people. After a while they become the majority and you can simply walk in unopposed.

On the other hand, if you have an ideology that spreads easily, you can indoctrinate the immigrants and they don't become a statist majority, they instead strengthen the locals. And depending on how you do it, deporting them and leaving them to survive on the mercy of strangers may not increase their loyalty to you.

Quote
We can wait and see. At the beginning of the story he presented a cartoon nanny state society, where it seemed everybody was afraid to break the law but it was all punishment, no reward. There was no particular reason for him to make the nanny-state realistic, because it was only the launching-point to get to the AnCap society. So that doesn't at all imply he'd make the invading army incompetent, except of course that they will be hampered by incompetent orders from home, as most invading armies have been since the invention of the telegraph at least.

It's one of the things I really do hate about EFT and a lot of the stuff BHP put out in general. They're not very good at writing opponents or questioning the ideology they've set out to endorse. It's as if they are absolutely incapable of any form of perspective-taking, or if they are it's stunted. Insofar I don't think we've seen anyone who he's writing as "the bad guy" who isn't some variation on an idiot. Seems only anarchists get to be cool or intelligent or competent at anything.

I have to grant you that one. But then, it's literally a cartoon. There's a limit how much complexity you can get into a limited number of picture frames. They're good at what they do, and if you can do something different that's worth doing they might give you a platform to try. Or if you disagree with them too much, they might not. I dunno.

It occurs to me that if you would write a statist comic that is presented well, that describes the tragic necessity of government, Sandy might write his disagreement and the implicit dialogue could improve both products. You could write up a proposal to BHP and see whether they'd go for it. It would be a whole lot of work for you, though.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 06, 2011, 11:38:09 am
Interesting how this page, #3, is half quotes.

Patriotism of the poor? I refer you to the Confederate States of America where the white trash little guys allegedly fought and died in great numbers for the evil slave holding elite. Then and there even slaves felt a level of patriotism.

Or the Great Patriotic war, did all those Russians die for Stalin?

Hate or envy Reggie for his wealth, hell no, emulate him! In that there and then, it shouldn't be hard to try.

If there is a fight it will be tight quarters fighting where only so many people fit. It would be more like a police raid than Gettysburg and these folks are not going to be surprised.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 06, 2011, 12:04:12 pm
Interesting how this page, #3, is half quotes.

Patriotism of the poor? I refer you to the Confederate States of America where the white trash little guys allegedly fought and died in great numbers for the evil slave holding elite. Then and there even slaves felt a level of patriotism.

Walter E Williams supported this thesis, which is plausible.

Or the Great Patriotic war, did all those Russians die for Stalin?

There is something about all your family being executed if you defect and yourself being hang if you retreat ... the soviets made use dirty tactics against their own troops. At Stalingrad cannon fodder were executed if they ever retreated without order and could only be excused if they were shot multiple times

So it wasn't much a question of patriotism
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 06, 2011, 12:22:55 pm
I have trouble taking Iceland seriously when more than half the population was enslaved. Most of the rest were started and existed in warzones.
J Thomas, do you have any evidence for those assertions?  It's been several years since I read about saga-era Iceland, but if I remember correctly there very few slaves and much less violence than in mainland Europe (which did have frequent wars).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 06, 2011, 01:00:58 pm
As to Stalingrad, some of both, but not every recruit was stupid cannon fodder driven to slaughter. The Russian hatred of Germans did not start with or happen at the whim of crazy Comrade Stalin, whom I certainly don't endorse; the peasants would have fought just as hard and willingly for the Czar had he been around. They did it twice before. If invaded they'd do the same today for Putin and his figurehead, Medved is it? Moral of the story, don't invade Russia, them folks is magnificently crazy nuts.

I own and treasure a Mosin Nagant M38 carbine made in 1941, who used it and where I have no idea, never will. It could have been at Stalingrad. it could have been used by slave soldiers but by driven cannon fodder or by volunteers. It was used to repel an invader and that'll do for me.

Russia as a culture not a country is maybe a thousand years old. Akihito's family has been defining Japan for almost 2,000 years. Of course China was old even then. Definitions change but every nation knows who they are and cares about it.  Hell, General Lee felt first allegiance to Virginia, an infant culture of a mere 300 years.

A wolf pack howls we are here and this ours and as Sov Rosenberg pointed out we on some level have our own packs.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 06, 2011, 01:08:26 pm
I assume that in the EFT universe, Earth's governments are similar to ours.  In particular, there will be government schools whose primary purpose is turning intelligent children into obedient citizens.  Without government schools, most people of Ceres will be better educated (and have much better critical thinking skills) than most people of Earth.  The government schools (if effective) should make the soldiers willing to die for the state, but the people of Ceres will be defending their homes and loved ones, which should compensate.  And there are advantages to being defenders with a detailed knowledge of the "terrain".

Oh wow. Is that what schools in the USA are like?
frack me sideways I am so glad I don't live in a shit heap like that.
I mean seriously now, find me a normal school that sets out to do what you're saying there. I know British ones don't as not once have I had a "WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE!" statement thrown out in the classroom by the teacher. Hell not even when I was at a school paid for and ran by the DoD for their families (back when my father was on a Germany tour).

Of course not.  Most people who work in government schools have no animus towards children (at least when they start their careers), and many want to help children.  But how much can they do in a system that is designed to prevent education (especially when they don't realize it)?  Not much--only those who are willing to buck the system can make a significant difference, and only for a few children.

If you were told by a MacDonalds employee that a Big Mac is the perfect food and should be eaten several times each day, would you accept that uncritically?  When you are told by a government-licensed teacher reading from a government-certified textbook following a government-approved curriculum that government schools are good for children, do you accept that uncritically?

If you want to learn about government schools in the US (which, as far as I can tell, are much like government schools elsewhere), read almost anything by John Taylor Gatto (NY state teacher of the year a while back).  Note: I don't accept all of Gatto's analysis, but his historical research appears to be excellent.

Making sure children behave in school isn't a bad thing you know?
Preventing children from aggressing against other children is good.  But forcing children to endure hours of mind-numbing boredom every day, when they'd prefer to be doing almost anything else (including learning), is bad.  Very bad.

Most young children are incredibly eager to understand the "adult world".  Government schools have several functions, but the primary one is to instill automatic unthinking obedience, which requires the suppression of the desire to learn.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 06, 2011, 01:17:01 pm
Even in liberal places the lower classes tend to be raised more authoritarian, and hate to hear their kids do critical thinking.
Yes, although I'm not sure if that's the actual tendency, or it's slightly more complicated than that.

The wealthy can afford for their children to indulge themselves. The middle class, on the other hand, want their children to succeed, and thus consider it very important for their children to be conventional and respectable. Here, I'm using "middle class" broadly, to include people also described as "working class".

But at the very bottom of the ladder, the attitude towards authority is cynicism, and so there I wouldn't think that critical thinking is frowned upon.

It's one of the things I really do hate about EFT and a lot of the stuff BHP put out in general. They're not very good at writing opponents or questioning the ideology they've set out to endorse. It's as if they are absolutely incapable of any form of perspective-taking, or if they are it's stunted. Insofar I don't think we've seen anyone who he's writing as "the bad guy" who isn't some variation on an idiot. Seems only anarchists get to be cool or intelligent or competent at anything.
I've found what appears here to be entertaining rather than preachy.

I've made a criticism at one point that may be similar to yours in one sense - I see the situation of Ceres to be a natural one for an AnCap society to thrive in, so the comic doesn't really make a case for it being the best way to provide the most freedom to people under more difficult circumstances for such a society.

But the format of a webcomic does not lend itself to... fully developing the character of the adversaries. We've seen Guy Gaillard's character and motives explained - but this isn't a novel by David Weber in which we could spend a chapter dealing with the inner councils of the United World. So I don't think that what you're citing here could really be characterized as a serious weakness of the comic.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 03:05:48 pm
Or the Great Patriotic war, did all those Russians die for Stalin?

There is something about all your family being executed if you defect and yourself being hang if you retreat ... the soviets made use dirty tactics against their own troops. At Stalingrad cannon fodder were executed if they ever retreated without order and could only be excused if they were shot multiple times

So it wasn't much a question of patriotism

There's some evidence that the guys doing the machine gunning were given a lot of latitude. They mostly hated that job. When they found lost soldiers they had some opportunity to help them find their units instead of kill them.

But beyond that, Russians had a great surge of patriotism when the Germans invaded. The Party opened up and let a whole lot of people join, and they did join. In peacetime you could join the Party but you had to attend lots and lots of dreary meetings and there was no reward for doing that. Being a lowest-level party member didn't get you much. But after the war started they let people join and not attend many meetings.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 03:11:17 pm
Even in liberal places the lower classes tend to be raised more authoritarian, and hate to hear their kids do critical thinking.
Yes, although I'm not sure if that's the actual tendency, or it's slightly more complicated than that.

The wealthy can afford for their children to indulge themselves. The middle class, on the other hand, want their children to succeed, and thus consider it very important for their children to be conventional and respectable. Here, I'm using "middle class" broadly, to include people also described as "working class".

But at the very bottom of the ladder, the attitude towards authority is cynicism, and so there I wouldn't think that critical thinking is frowned upon.

Yes, that fits. My experience with families at the bottom of the barrel is limited, but it has involved strict authority of the parents, with inconsistent penalties when children sneakily defy their orders and then get caught. Mouthing off to official authority figures is accepted but sometimes regretted, but mouthing off to parents is not.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 06, 2011, 04:16:28 pm
Even in liberal places the lower classes tend to be raised more authoritarian, and hate to hear their kids do critical thinking.
Yes, although I'm not sure if that's the actual tendency, or it's slightly more complicated than that.

The wealthy can afford for their children to indulge themselves. The middle class, on the other hand, want their children to succeed, and thus consider it very important for their children to be conventional and respectable. Here, I'm using "middle class" broadly, to include people also described as "working class".

But at the very bottom of the ladder, the attitude towards authority is cynicism, and so there I wouldn't think that critical thinking is frowned upon.

It amazes me that people suppose that people which are lumped into disparate income groups must share some sort of common ''culture'' or Behaviour.

Either it be the ''Greedy capitalist class'', the ''worker class'' everyone is supposed to have patterned behaviour based on income ... what a lame and completely false idea.

For one thing income says nothing about people culture and people with the same income can be culturaly, socialy and etnically more diverse ... for one thing their ''class'' is nothing more than an arbitrary statistical artifice and their income is fruit of accident at best.

Why have only three classes ? why not have 50 of them ? By what magical process does one income condition someone to behave in a pattern ?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 07:05:25 pm
I have trouble taking Iceland seriously when more than half the population was enslaved. Most of the rest were started and existed in warzones.
J Thomas, do you have any evidence for those assertions?  It's been several years since I read about saga-era Iceland, but if I remember correctly there very few slaves and much less violence than in mainland Europe (which did have frequent wars).

I don't have a link handy. I remember that the Icelandic genome was reported to be about half Norse and half Irish, and Irish people didn't get to Iceland except as slaves.

The sagas included subtle distinctions among the Norse, where a craven man could be essentially a slave, and there was not much difference between "bondsmen" and slaves.

Here's a link that does not say what the percentage of slaves was, except that it was dangerous for it to be too high lest the slaves revolt.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm

A nice description which does not give numbers.
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/thralls.shtml

A 106 page senior thesis that links to a paper which claims 20% of Iceland males are of Irish descent along with 63% of females.
http://history.rutgers.edu/component//docman/doc_download/152-they-accuse-us-of-being-descended-from-slaves
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 06, 2011, 07:57:55 pm
I remember that the Icelandic genome was reported to be about half Norse and half Irish, and Irish people didn't get to Iceland except as slaves.
To get from the genetic information to half of the people are slaves requires several assumptions, some of them unlikely.

The sagas included subtle distinctions among the Norse, where a craven man could be essentially a slave, and there was not much distinction made about the difference between "bondsmen" and slaves.
The Icelandic sagas?  I have only read a few, but that isn't the impression I got.  Other Norse sagas may have been different.

Here's a link that does not say what the percentage of slaves was, except that it was dangerous for it to be too high lest the slaves revolt.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm
Note that it does say:
Quote
The vast majority of Norsemen belonged to the middle class, the karls.
Also, it ignores differences in societies in different places and at different times.

A nice description which does not give numbers.
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/thralls.shtml
Another source which does not differentiate between different times and places.  You are aware that Iceland was settled by people fleeing from the despotism of the Norse king, aren't you?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 06, 2011, 08:44:45 pm

It amazes me that people suppose that people which are lumped into disparate income groups must share some sort of common ''culture'' or Behaviour.

In my limited experiences I believe I've observed a degree of common culture among some people who tend to fit into some income groups. Since people have some tendency to flock with others of similar incomes, and since culture has a big influence on jobs and income and so on, would you expect that not to happen at all?

Of course income isn't a sufficient predictor. And of course there's an element of self-selection. So I can say some things with moderate reliability about southern "good old boys" that will be true partly because of selection bias -- a person who chooses to change his accent and clothing style etc will not fit the stereotypes because he doesn't fit the stereotypes.

Similarly, you may not be able to say much reliably about Dodgers fans except that they tend to cheer for the Dodgers, but you can say that much. A couple of people from Chicago have told me very detailed stereotypes about Cubs fans but I myself have met only one Cubs fan and that one did not fit their model at all. She did cheer for the Cubs, though.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 07, 2011, 02:25:16 am
It occurs to me that if you would write a statist comic that is presented well, that describes the tragic necessity of government, Sandy might write his disagreement and the implicit dialogue could improve both products. You could write up a proposal to BHP and see whether they'd go for it. It would be a whole lot of work for you, though.


Honestly? I wouldn't be overtly interested. Writing propaganda is beneath me and I'd be more comfortable writing something that points out the pros and cons of both sides. Plus I'm better at writing settings than characters.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 07, 2011, 03:53:44 am

It amazes me that people suppose that people which are lumped into disparate income groups must share some sort of common ''culture'' or Behaviour.

In my limited experiences I believe I've observed a degree of common culture among some people who tend to fit into some income groups. Since people have some tendency to flock with others of similar incomes, and since culture has a big influence on jobs and income and so on, would you expect that not to happen at all?

One thing is poor people tending to live in one neighbourhood, driving a certain type of car or taking part in certain types of activities, for no other reasons that they generally can't afford something else.

There might have some similar cultural traits, but the ''class'' many claim that they form is simply out of reality ... has if all these people shared common objecitve and acted rationally for it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 07, 2011, 09:48:38 am
sams,

When "class" is used as a term to mean "people with income in a certain range" or "people with wealth in a certain range", it may simply be a sign of intellectual laziness or carelessness.  I can recall being guilty of that myself.

But, as you note, it is often (deliberately or not) used to smuggle in the assertion that all people within such a class have significant common interests and therefore do (or should) act together.  But so what?  Many, many terms are (deliberately or not) abused frequently.  "Class" is just one of them.

By the way (if you don't know already), class analysis can be useful when "class" is defined appropriately, and was so defined by some classical French economists before being corrupted by Marx and those who (deliberately or not) follow his usage.  Sheldon Richman wrote this short essay on the subject:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.pdf
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Scott on February 07, 2011, 10:29:00 am
Quote
It occurs to me that if you would write a statist comic that is presented well, that describes the tragic necessity of government, Sandy might write his disagreement and the implicit dialogue could improve both products. You could write up a proposal to BHP and see whether they'd go for it. It would be a whole lot of work for you, though

Oh, please. There are thousands upon thousands of statist comics out there. And a tiny handful of libertarian/anarchist ones, most of which we publish. Readers are invited to compare our works with their favorite statist comic and develop their own dialogs.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 07, 2011, 10:35:54 am
Ecconomic class is an arbitrary construct because the criteria are whatever suits your need. Pick a number any number.

What about fairly well off frugal people or spendthrift less well off folks with the trappings of wealth but no money and serious debt? We all know some of both.

Divide and conquer works best when the conquered do the dividing.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 07, 2011, 10:37:53 am
Statist Comics?
Who needs them when we have the popular press and TV?

Added, Doonsbury, how ever you spell that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 07, 2011, 10:44:31 am
Quote
There's some evidence that the guys doing the machine gunning were given a lot of latitude. They mostly hated that job. When they found lost soldiers they had some opportunity to help them find their units instead of kill them.

But beyond that, Russians had a great surge of patriotism when the Germans invaded. The Party opened up and let a whole lot of people join, and they did join. In peacetime you could join the Party but you had to attend lots and lots of dreary meetings and there was no reward for doing that. Being a lowest-level party member didn't get you much. But after the war started they let people join and not attend many meetings. 

The ZAP applies to countries too, what is any invasion but a mass mugging.

Gods it hurts to take Stalin's side on anything.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 07, 2011, 10:53:32 am

Oh, please. There are thousands upon thousands of statist comics out there.

Are there?  While I would agree that there are few that are specifically libertarian/anarchist, many of the comics tend to avoid politics, except perhaps in the most subtle or subliminal ways, and those that do delve into politics tend to focus on rebels, outcasts, and conspiracies, thus making them anti-authoritarian to some degree.

Of the strips I read regularly, I would say that Starslip by Kris Straub is probably the most pro-authoritarian, and even it focuses on the odd and somewhat silly crew of Captain Vanderbeam.

But then, maybe I'm just not coming across the more pro-authoritarian comics, or have not been interested in reading them regularly.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Gillsing on February 07, 2011, 11:51:56 am
But forcing children to endure hours of mind-numbing boredom every day, when they'd prefer to be doing almost anything else (including learning), is bad.  Very bad.
Yeah! I wanted to stay at home and play with my toys, not go to school. But I went anyway, so that my parents wouldn't have a reason to bug me when I played with my toys on my own time.

Most young children are incredibly eager to understand the "adult world".  Government schools have several functions, but the primary one is to instill automatic unthinking obedience, which requires the suppression of the desire to learn.
People don't want to spend that much money on public schools, so schools can only afford one teacher per group of students. A lot of the time that one teacher has to speak to the entire group, and therefore it becomes necessary for the students to sit still and remain quiet, otherwise they distract the other students and perhaps the teacher as well. That doesn't seem like a primary function as much as a necessary evil. Or is that just government propaganda? Even so, I wouldn't say that the schools instil "unthinking obedience". I would say that they teach children to "show consideration". I guess it might suppress the desire to learn, and maybe in the future people will take the necessary time to customise education for each child.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 07, 2011, 12:20:08 pm
sams,

When "class" is used as a term to mean "people with income in a certain range" or "people with wealth in a certain range", it may simply be a sign of intellectual laziness or carelessness.  I can recall being guilty of that myself.

But, as you note, it is often (deliberately or not) used to smuggle in the assertion that all people within such a class have significant common interests and therefore do (or should) act together.  But so what?  Many, many terms are (deliberately or not) abused frequently.  "Class" is just one of them.

As Tom G Palmer from the Cato Institute said ''there are philosophical trends (I don't remember which now) that determine that it is not YOU that speaks, but it is Language that speaks. Being that you don't say what you want to say, but what the word means''.

This seems confusing, but it is a practice moderm practice of using loaded terms when they talks, with the common threat of using positive for these concept he likes and negative for those who he dessagre with.

By the way (if you don't know already), class analysis can be useful when "class" is defined appropriately, and was so defined by some classical French economists before being corrupted by Marx and those who (deliberately or not) follow his usage.  Sheldon Richman wrote this short essay on the subject:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.pdf

Thanks for remembering this point, I had listened to a FEE lecture about the ''classical liberal class analyse'', thanks for the link.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 07, 2011, 01:00:27 pm
But forcing children to endure hours of mind-numbing boredom every day, when they'd prefer to be doing almost anything else (including learning), is bad.  Very bad.
Yeah! I wanted to stay at home and play with my toys, not go to school. But I went anyway, so that my parents wouldn't have a reason to bug me when I played with my toys on my own time.

Most young children are incredibly eager to understand the "adult world".  Government schools have several functions, but the primary one is to instill automatic unthinking obedience, which requires the suppression of the desire to learn.
People don't want to spend that much money on public schools, so schools can only afford one teacher per group of students. A lot of the time that one teacher has to speak to the entire group, and therefore it becomes necessary for the students to sit still and remain quiet, otherwise they distract the other students and perhaps the teacher as well. That doesn't seem like a primary function as much as a necessary evil. Or is that just government propaganda? Even so, I wouldn't say that the schools instil "unthinking obedience". I would say that they teach children to "show consideration". I guess it might suppress the desire to learn, and maybe in the future people will take the necessary time to customise education for each child.

Yeah, it's not like teachers get paid based on merit or anything like that.  Maybe in the future people *will* customize education for their children, like the wealthier can do by putting their kids in a modern private school, or just about anybody can do by homeschooling their kids.

After all, public schools have changed so little since they became prominent in our society. 

The problem isn't so much the teachers and administrators as it is the system itself that creates obstructions to improving education.  After all, when you have a union that negotiates with poltiicians and bureaucrats for your pay, the incentives are different than if your pay was based upon how well you actually teach.


Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 07, 2011, 04:39:14 pm
Quote
It occurs to me that if you would write a statist comic that is presented well, that describes the tragic necessity of government, Sandy might write his disagreement and the implicit dialogue could improve both products. You could write up a proposal to BHP and see whether they'd go for it. It would be a whole lot of work for you, though

Oh, please. There are thousands upon thousands of statist comics out there. And a tiny handful of libertarian/anarchist ones, most of which we publish. Readers are invited to compare our works with their favorite statist comic and develop their own dialogs.

I haven't looked for statist comics, so I could be wrong. But I believe they tend to be unconscious about it -- they don't try to persuade people to be statists, they simply don't imagine any alternative.

Somebody who presented the best cartoon statist arguments he could, might inspire you to even greater heights. But we'd need somebody to actually do it, and so far we don't have a volunteer. And it wouldn't be any use to you unless you gave it a try, and it sounds like you aren't interested. I'll drop it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 07, 2011, 06:26:04 pm
I haven't looked for statist comics, so I could be wrong. But I believe they tend to be unconscious about it -- they don't try to persuade people to be statists, they simply don't imagine any alternative.

Here you go:

http://www.contractcomic.com/index.html

It is CG's wet dream. ::)

P.S. This is how it works when I have written off some ass on the Forum. I simply skip over any original posts by him (it's always a "him"). This spares me from having to read personal and spiteful invectives. However, I do read the parts that are quoted by anyone I respect (which is most of you). I am usually rewarded by the ass getting an intellectual whipping. That warms my heart. ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 07, 2011, 09:26:15 pm
Here you go:

http://www.contractcomic.com/index.html
After having a look, I suspect that this actually is just a comic that can't imagine an alternative to statism. So, without the State in good working order, life is nasty, brutish, and short. But, hey, people get a chance to do exciting things (unlike under a well-managed state, where things are dull and boring).

So it's likely to be about as political as Mad Max.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Big.Swede on February 08, 2011, 02:17:50 am
There has now been pointed out something that i find slightly... anoying? about EFT. Don´t get me wrong, i realy like the comic, and i do look forward to every update, as i do with most comics here on BHP. I find them intelligent and thought provoking mostly, and well written and drawn.

Most how ever, and as this is the EFT part of the forums so i´ll stick with that, seem to whittle people down two two camps. The intelligent, dilligent , reasonable persons that fairly quickly embraces the An-Cap ideal, or what happens to be the point of whatever comic. While anyone who does not is either drooling level stupid or corrupt. From the looks of it, quite frequently both.

I know, i  know. Most other comics are unrealistic like this in one way or another too. I point that out too when it happens. Just thought i´d bring it up as a constructive critizism to the writers here. Might be something worth keeping in mind.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 08, 2011, 02:23:40 am
I haven't looked for statist comics, so I could be wrong. But I believe they tend to be unconscious about it -- they don't try to persuade people to be statists, they simply don't imagine any alternative.

Here you go:

http://www.contractcomic.com/index.html

Thank you for the link. However, this was not at all what I was looking for. They imagine a world where mercenaries get lots of chances to shoot at each other, and they have fun imagining fun mercenary contracts. It looks to me like the only reason they left government out of it is that governments tend to collect greatly superior force and then smash little mercenary companies if they try to do anything interesting, and they didn't want that, so no government.

I didn't read it all, but I saw nothing there to suggest things would be better with a government. It was only about how great it would be to watch a female mercenary make a whole lot of money kicking ass. With her two big boobs. Oh, and her breasts are gigantic too.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 08, 2011, 07:41:30 am
There has now been pointed out something that i find slightly... anoying? about EFT... seem to whittle people down two two camps. The intelligent, dilligent , reasonable persons that fairly quickly embraces the An-Cap ideal, or what happens to be the point of whatever comic. While anyone who does not is either drooling level stupid or corrupt. From the looks of it, quite frequently both.

Check back with us after the current arc is done.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 08, 2011, 09:06:35 am
I haven't looked for statist comics, so I could be wrong. But I believe they tend to be unconscious about it -- they don't try to persuade people to be statists, they simply don't imagine any alternative.

Here you go:

http://www.contractcomic.com/index.html

It is CG's wet dream. ::)

LOL this so funny ... I'm sure there is less than subtle reference to those Distasful Koch brothers  ;D

Indeed the Statist wet dream in high dose and with low intellectual content ... so nobody risk actually learning anything
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 08, 2011, 09:42:52 am


http://www.contractcomic.com/index.html


The drawing style is very good , but the storys are unsophisticated, they are not performing thought experiments or explaining how things work as much as EFT.

The one interesting idea I spotted there was "jacking" interlopers who step in and take over a "contract" in its late stages to receive payment after the origional contractor has done the hard part.

I don't know what would prevent this sort of muscleing in when there is no central authority, but in the present day such "jacking " is sometimes done in connivance with the central authority, so I don't think that haveing a central authority is an absolute cure for this problem either.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 08, 2011, 09:54:49 am

People don't want to spend that much money on public schools, so schools can only afford one teacher per group of students. A lot of the time that one teacher has to speak to the entire group, and therefore it becomes necessary for the students to sit still and remain quiet, otherwise they distract the other students and perhaps the teacher as well. That doesn't seem like a primary function as much as a necessary evil. Or is that just government propaganda? Even so, I wouldn't say that the schools instil "unthinking obedience". I would say that they teach children to "show consideration". I guess it might suppress the desire to learn, and maybe in the future people will take the necessary time to customise education for each child.

The problem with government schools is not the lack of funding. See this chart:
(http://mhodges701.home.comcast.net/~mhodges701/educ_prod_2.gif)

The problem is that old nemesis: the calculation problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

Like any socialist entity - or any large bureaucracy, for that matter - government schools, over long periods of time, lack the ability to discover efficient ways of providing education.

Some - including John Taylor Gatto - make the case that government schools actually do not exist to provide education, but to teach children to submit to authority. See his Underground History of Education at
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm)

There are better alternatives. An estimated 2.1 million American children are home-schooled. On average, they score 15 to 30 percentile points above their peers: see
http://www.nheri.org/Research-Facts-on-Homeschooling.html (http://www.nheri.org/Research-Facts-on-Homeschooling.html)

When un-trained parents do so much better than trained professionals, doesn't it make sense to ask what is wrong with the institution of government schooling itself?

I have a home-schooled grandson who is eight years old; he'd be in "third grade" nowadays; he tests at the 12th grade level in math, the 9th grade in grammar and punctuation, and is presently studying the programming language Python. You won't find any 3rd grade classroom, even a "gifted" class, which can keep up with his eager mind - nor with his younger siblings, who learned to read at the age of three.
His mother has a high school diploma, and no college training; she would be "unqualified to teach" at a government school. Yet, she is obviously doing something right.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 08, 2011, 10:21:29 am
We're being teased with Ernie's description of the UW forces:  "Some of them drive the hotel shuttle around, apparently looking for central points of infrastructure and authority."

This does seem to indicate plans for a 'hostile takeover'.  They must think that it'll be a cakewalk, since they can just walk in and make their preparations before they act.  But, as Ernie's description shows, they are being closely watched. 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 08, 2011, 10:58:10 am
Quote
Yeah! I wanted to stay at home and play with my toys, not go to school.

There's a variety of homeschooling that calls itself "unschooling."  We do let our kids stay home and play with their toys. 

If the kid has just been pulled out of formal school, he'll spend 6-18 months or so "doing nothing" (aka finding out if you really mean it, about being able to call his own shots).  When he gets it that you mean it -- well, unschoolers are full of stories like terry's grandson (and I have no idea if his family is unschooling or just replicating school on friendlier terms).  Unschooling has accounts of kids who didn't bother to learn to read until they were 12 or 13 -- and who, once they finally got interested, surpassed their peers in just a couple of years.  That is unusual -- most kids in unschooling families see the adults reading and learn early because imitating adults is the preferred play of juveniles.

The entire 12-year US curriculum can be learned in four years by any normally-intelligent kid who has merely a cordial interest; it can be learned (and learned well, as in "retained") by a highly-motivated kid in two. 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 11:26:50 am
Agreed about home schoolers, I know some too, very advanced kids.

There is a nastiness about the way US schools are funded by the feds, the so much per head as long as they show up bit. As nasty, at least here in Washington is an expansion of special ed status to what wiould have been pretty normal kids back when the world and I were young. That status is worth more to them per student. Does that mean the kid with borderline learning issues is in direct competition for resources with the kid in the wheelchair who just might need it more?

Like so much else involving government money, they wrap themselves around the regulations suckling from every teat they can find. It's not the schools alone, the same applies to highway departments, cops, pick one.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 08, 2011, 12:10:19 pm
as this is the EFT part of the forums so i´ll stick with that, seem to whittle people down two two camps. The intelligent, dilligent , reasonable persons that fairly quickly embraces the An-Cap ideal, or what happens to be the point of whatever comic. While anyone who does not is either drooling level stupid or corrupt. From the looks of it, quite frequently both.
I (and I suppose most of us) want to read interesting stories, not "realistic" stories about the routine occurrences of everyday life.  Interesting things tend to happen to people who are intelligent and resourceful (and sometimes when they come into conflict with corrupt people).

I don't recall seeing anyone who was "drooling level stupid".  What did I miss?  (That Neil guy (who wanted to throw Guy and Fiorella out the airlock) didn't seem very bright, but Cathy kept him in line.)

About most people accepting AnCap, of course they do.  Almost everyone raised in a free society (or that tiny fraction of Earthlings who deliberately escape to a free society) would accept the mores and customs of a free society.  (My best friends support governments without question, but I'd bet if they had been raised on EFT's Ceres they'd support the ZAP without question.)  In my opinion, the few people that we've seen entering AnCap society on Ceres have been handled realistically.

I'd consider Fiorella to be one of that tiny fraction of Earthlings who is willing to question what she's been taught.  She's atypical, so her being sent on the mission to Ceres could be considered unrealistic, but that doesn't bother me.  Who said that any story should be allowed one coincidence?

Guy is more typical.  He would have continued to support the UWRS except for his being in love with Fiorella, and even then it was close.

Butcher Harris doesn't accept the ZAP and never would.

William Young might have accepted the ZAP if taught it as a child, but as an adult he won't accept it.

Of the Gamma Conqueror crew members, only 1/5 chose to stay on Ceres.  (They didn't necessarily agree with ZAP wholeheartedly--they could have been afraid of the reception they'd get back on Earth.)  And, in opposition to the principles that the military claimed to follow, they had just witnessed the deliberate murder of innocent people by Harris (who they knew had done similar things before and been rewarded for it).

Robyn had been repeatedly brutalized by government "authorities".  In a free society, she wasn't.  We don't know if she fully accepts the ZAP, but it isn't unrealistic to assume that she will.

The "pirates" who tried to kill Bert and Ernie were criminals, and would probably be criminals (or government police) anywhere.  They probably wouldn't accept the societal mores and customs anywhere.

Carlos obviously didn't understand AnCap, may still misunderstand it, and might not like it if he did.

I may have missed someone, but I think the behavior of all of these people on Ceres has been realistic.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 08, 2011, 12:33:35 pm

When un-trained parents do so much better than trained professionals, doesn't it make sense to ask what is wrong with the institution of government schooling itself?

I sympathise with this idea, but we should also consider the selection bias.

If a student is home-schooled and lags behind the schools, will the state allow him to continue to be home-schooled? Maybe, but it's going to be hard. So if homeschooling was on average no better than government schools we should expect to see the lower half of the home-schooled students dumped into the school system. The remaining students will obviously test better.

More-intelligent parents may be more likely to homeschool, and their children will tend to be more intelligent too. On the other hand, fanatical Christians are also more likely to homeschool, and their intelligence has a lot of room to vary. That one might be a wash, except the state requires parents to jump through so many hoops that it tends to take something special to actually manage homeschooling, at least in Virginia. But then, Christian fanatics tend to share their methods with each other and help each other get through the bureaucracy.

None of this says you're wrong, but it says your experience may not provide the inferences you want to make. Like, it might turn out that 70% or 90% or some unknown fraction of students do better in government schools than they would if they were homeschooled by their parents, and that it's only the best homeschoolers who are allowed to continue. We don't know how many kids would do well with homeschooling because the ones who do well with it are not at all a random sample.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 08, 2011, 12:57:38 pm
Brugle, thank you. This is a very astute character analysis. It's makes my day when readers have been paying attention and thinking.

One thing you touched on that I would like to add. Yes, everyone is some combination of good and bad. However, people who actually do big things in life tend to be more good or more bad then normal. For all I know, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the real Bomber/Butcher Harris, may have loved their mothers, puppies and apple pie, but they were still monsters. Private Bradley Manning may hate cats, have bad personal hygiene and smoke in bed, but he is still a hero. We are publishing stories about people who take stands--for good or evil. The fact that they tilt one way or other is far more realistic, in fact or fiction, than some equivocal, morally ambiguous character in a artsy French film. Anyway, that will not change. Plan your reading habits accordingly.

I (and I suppose most of us) want to read interesting stories, not "realistic" stories about the routine occurrences of everyday life.  Interesting things tend to happen to people who are intelligent and resourceful (and sometimes when they come into conflict with corrupt people).

I don't recall seeing anyone who was "drooling level stupid".  What did I miss?  (That Neil guy (who wanted to throw Guy and Fiorella out the airlock) didn't seem very bright, but Cathy kept him in line.)

About most people accepting AnCap, of course they do.  Almost everyone raised in a free society (or that tiny fraction of Earthlings who deliberately escape to a free society) would accept the mores and customs of a free society.  (My best friends support governments without question, but I'd bet if they had been raised on EFT's Ceres they'd support the ZAP without question.)  In my opinion, the few people that we've seen entering AnCap society on Ceres have been handled realistically.

I'd consider Fiorella to be one of that tiny fraction of Earthlings who is willing to question what she's been taught.  She's atypical, so her being sent on the mission to Ceres could be considered unrealistic, but that doesn't bother me.  Who said that any story should be allowed one coincidence?

Guy is more typical.  He would have continued to support the UWRS except for his being in love with Fiorella, and even then it was close.

Butcher Harris doesn't accept the ZAP and never would.

William Young might have accepted the ZAP if taught it as a child, but as an adult he won't accept it.

Of the Gamma Conqueror crew members, only 1/5 chose to stay on Ceres.  (They didn't necessarily agree with ZAP wholeheartedly--they could have been afraid of the reception they'd get back on Earth.)  And, in opposition to the principles that the military claimed to follow, they had just witnessed the deliberate murder of innocent people by Harris (who they knew had done similar things before and been rewarded for it).

Robyn had been repeatedly brutalized by government "authorities".  In a free society, she wasn't.  We don't know if she fully accepts the ZAP, but it isn't unrealistic to assume that she will.

The "pirates" who tried to kill Bert and Ernie were criminals, and would probably be criminals (or government police) anywhere.  They probably wouldn't accept the societal mores and customs anywhere.

Carlos obviously didn't understand AnCap, may still misunderstand it, and might not like it if he did.

I may have missed someone, but I think the behavior of all of these people on Ceres has been realistic.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 08, 2011, 03:02:11 pm
This strip does tend to give us bad guys who are not very capable.  AnCap v Earth is not exactly in the tradition of Holmes v Moriarty. 

But what can we expect?  It's hard to write the enemy as a capable challenging adversary.  It's easier to just making him an idiot and then have him satisfactory swatted down by the here.

As I said before this arc will be the writer's biggest challenge so far.  Well he take the easy way or the hard way?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 08, 2011, 03:28:14 pm
Quote
None of this says you're wrong, but it says your experience may not provide the inferences you want to make.

A single post on a comic forum is probably not the best place for him to do a complete data dump of all the information he has on the matter.  And even so, this particular data point -- a high-school mom, and some kids who are amazingly far beyond the state-schooled norm -- yeah, I think that gives him the right to ask why highly-trained professionals aren't coming even close.

One thing he's not mentioning (and which I suspect he has) is a theoretical basis for why the state schools should be expected to perform poorly, compared to "free-range" students.  It's quite straightforward, actually.  It's exactly the same reason communism didn't work out so well for the farmers of the USSR and China:  humans don't do their best work under coercion.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 08, 2011, 03:44:58 pm
JThomas, I invite you to study the research at NHERI.org.

Guess which group now has the fastest uptake of home-schooling? Minorities who would otherwise go to inner-city schools. Research finds that they do very well indeed. It also finds that parental level of education and income - those "socio-economic" predictors which doom government-schooled victims to such inferior results - have very little impact on the success of home schooling.

Who is most likely to home-school? Those who do badly at government schools. Is this a selection bias for more-intelligent children? If so, what does it say about government schools - have they no place for intelligent children?

As another poster remarked, the favorite form of play for children is the imitation of adults. My grandchildren didn't learn to read at the age of three because their mother put them in tiny little chairs and said "You will learn phonics today, or else!" - they learned to read because they asked to be taught, because they observed that the bigger people in their lives enjoyed reading. By the time they are five, they read fluently, without pause, deciphering new words with ease from books many years beyond their "grade level."

I once watched my granddaughter teaching her younger brother the alphabet; they were 3 years and 18 months of age at the time. It wasn't a formal sit-at-your-desk lesson; it was play. Another time, I listened to a 4 year old explain to a 6 year old how to find New York on a globe, by correspondence between similar points on a map. This wasn't part of a formal lesson plan; it was discovered during the course of play.

What could a government school do for a first grader who already knows how to read fluently, already knows powers and exponents and negative numbers and binary arithmetic, who enjoys cryptography as a hobby, who can compute the sum of the even numbers from 2 to 100 in his head faster than you can reach for your calculator? ( 25 times 102, or 2550 - 100111110110 in binary, if you prefer. )
 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 08, 2011, 05:47:57 pm

One thing he's not mentioning (and which I suspect he has) is a theoretical basis for why the state schools should be expected to perform poorly, compared to "free-range" students.

I tend to agree. The theoretical reasoning looks plausible. The actual results look good.

My caution is in extending it from the small fraction of home-schoolers who first try it and then are successful enough to continue, to the whole collection of children. When you start with a small self-selected sample and extrapolate to everybody, the results often are not pretty.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 05:51:39 pm
This strip does tend to give us bad guys who are not very capable.  AnCap v Earth is not exactly in the tradition of Holmes v Moriarty. 

But what can we expect?  It's hard to write the enemy as a capable challenging adversary.  It's easier to just making him an idiot and then have him satisfactory swatted down by the here.

As I said before this arc will be the writer's biggest challenge so far.  Well he take the easy way or the hard way?

You kidding it's not even Thundercats Vs Mumm-ra.
I wager a whole internet on the writer taking the easy way though. It seems to be BHP's pattern: "Guys promoting the message we want to endorse are flawless superhumans. Everyone is a slimy drooling retard who can barely tie their own shoes."
Which is a shame because I get the feeling that if the writers could stop trying to force the ideals down your throat for five minutes they could actually write decent villains. Maybe even....question their own beliefs? Oh who am I kidding that would require something along the lines of an ability to view things from another perspective, something they've consistently proven they lack.

Most how ever, and as this is the EFT part of the forums so i´ll stick with that, seem to whittle people down two two camps. The intelligent, dilligent , reasonable persons that fairly quickly embraces the An-Cap ideal, or what happens to be the point of whatever comic. While anyone who does not is either drooling level stupid or corrupt. From the looks of it, quite frequently both

I look forward to the updates too and I understand what you mean. You'll notice this also occurs in the forums with everyone leaping into action to defend the AnCap ideology. I think the problem is that the author is exposed to such a massive level of circlejerking as the yanks put it. Something very prevalent in American politics as well. A complete and total refusal to consider looking at things from other angles. Tunnel vision I guess you could say.

For writing propaganda this is a necessary thing. That's why I personally regard EFT (and most of BHP's stuff) as propaganda. Amusing but not something worth thinking too much about.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Gillsing on February 08, 2011, 06:30:53 pm
I can see why people would complain about the propaganda aspect of EFT, but complaining about inadequate villains seems very premature in this arc. Especially so after Sandy has already implied that things will be different this time.

His mother has a high school diploma, and no college training; she would be "unqualified to teach" at a government school. Yet, she is obviously doing something right.
Well, I assume that she has a lot fewer children to teach than a public school teacher would have. That's probably a big plus. As for the money involved, that was only to explain why schools can't have one teacher per student. If they could, perhaps public schools could become better than home schooling. But I suppose that it would still be terribly inefficient, considering the amount of money that would be needed.

There's a variety of homeschooling that calls itself "unschooling."  We do let our kids stay home and play with their toys. 

If the kid has just been pulled out of formal school, he'll spend 6-18 months or so "doing nothing" (aka finding out if you really mean it, about being able to call his own shots).  When he gets it that you mean it -- well, unschoolers are full of stories like terry's grandson (and I have no idea if his family is unschooling or just replicating school on friendlier terms).  Unschooling has accounts of kids who didn't bother to learn to read until they were 12 or 13 -- and who, once they finally got interested, surpassed their peers in just a couple of years.
This is the first time I hear about unschooling. And while I'm not sure that it would've worked very well for me, I can see how it would work with kids who do want to imitate adults and earn their respect. (I'd still have wanted to learn how to read and write both Swedish and English, but no promises after that. Though when I was a kid I also wanted to work so that I could get money for toys. Had there been any paying jobs for a ten year old I could perhaps have become a productive member of society instead of what I am today. But I'm pretty sure I couldn't have handled a paper route, so maybe society was right to not offer me the chance to work.)

As a kid I did receive idle threats/promises of getting to eat pancakes for a week so that I would get tired of pancakes, but sadly no adult would ever be so irresponsible as to actually subject their child to that kind of torture. I guess that's the closest I personally have come to the mere concept of unschooling. I figure that if I ever had to raise a kid, I would try stuff like that to see what actually happens.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 08, 2011, 06:38:07 pm
Quote
I figure that if I ever had to raise a kid, I would try stuff like that to see what actually happens.

Awesome, and I mean that sincerely.

About the only good thing Lord Chestefield ever said was, "When I was a young man, I had six theories on raising children.  Now I have six children and no theories."

If you try stuff to see what actually happens, you'll find that what will work for one kid will not work for another.  They will all want their autonomy respected -- and each one will be different in exactly what they think that means.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 06:45:38 pm
Public schooling varies. On some points it's better and others it's worse. On the plus point it brings schooling to the masses who otherwise would be unable to receive it. On the minus it can be inefficient as there's a significant number of children who don't benefit from the classroom approach. On the plus it ensures a minimum standard of literacy among the population. On the downside you have it becoming a political battleground where despite evidence, bad practice is continued (such as mixed gender classes).

Of course homeschooling isn't going to work for everyone. The majority won't even be able to provide schooling to their children. Without it over time you would have a general decay in education standards in the unlikely event nobody opened a private school (which often suffer from their own collection of issues)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 08, 2011, 06:54:16 pm
Does the Absence of public comic publication prevent people of having plenty of comics for single taste under the sun ?

There is a false US binary about education : Either Homeshooling or Public schooling.

What about Private schooling ? Either in the traditional Victorian way a la Harry Potter or in some form of private tutorship ?

Public schooling varies. On some points it's better and others it's worse. On the plus point it brings schooling to the masses who otherwise would be unable to receive it. On the minus it can be inefficient as there's a significant number of children who don't benefit from the classroom approach. On the plus it ensures a minimum standard of literacy among the population. On the downside you have it becoming a political battleground where despite evidence, bad practice is continued (such as mixed gender classes).

Of course homeschooling isn't going to work for everyone. The majority won't even be able to provide schooling to their children. Without it over time you would have a general decay in education standards in the unlikely event nobody opened a private school (which often suffer from their own collection of issues)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 07:02:47 pm
Three observations about the last couple strips.

 The UW troops look to be all male.

They pack heat in public and no one cares, go team Ceres. Relative to life as they knew it back home that must seem freaky indeed..

Look at the guy in the lower left of the lower right panel of strip #632, note what looks like a pistol length sawed off shotgun slung on his back.

One more, is Ernie wearing really baggy clothes in that strip or has he become a tad baggy himself?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 07:10:05 pm
Does the Absence of public comic publication prevent people of having plenty of comics for single taste under the sun ?

There is a false US binary about education : Either Homeshooling or Public schooling.

What about Private schooling ? Either in the traditional Victorian way a la Harry Potter or in some form of private tutorship ?

Nope but comparing comics to education is a bit of a silly thing to do.

Also I'm not American. Try to keep up old chap.
Private schools as I mentioned tend to have their own issues. Example, the one I attended for a few years had a habit of teaching you to pass tests rather than actually help you understand the material. It also had a rather disturbing Christian slant that really I found to be out of place in this country and not conductive to education at all.
Many private schools are in fact good to average schools. But you get quite a few that try to teach dogma rather than facts or ones that fail to teach the children things they need to know instead preferring to teach them a very specific curriculum that focuses on some bizarre narrow aspect of the human race.

You find the same in homeschooling. I'm sure you've heard the horror story of the furry who homeschooled his child (poor thing) and insisted on an hour each day devoted to "Furry studies"

As for the whole "Victorian way" I would presume you mean the form of education the wealthy received and not the common education that was more widely available. The children of a wealthy household (anywhere between one and ten) all being taught by a small number of educated individuals who may in some cases outnumber the children they are educating.
Yes in that scenario I would like to point out just why this was the sole reserve of the wealthy. The cost. It is not cheap, it is not readily available and is in fact obscenely expensive. Very few can afford it. The removal of government isn't going to suddenly make it cheaper, if anything it will only become more expensive.

Stop trying to scream "RAAAH FREE MARKET FOREVER! GOVERNMENT BAD!" and actually try thinking about why these things came about. Public schooling was pushed by businessmen and industrialists who required a workforce capable of basic literacy.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 07:50:53 pm
Continentals, I imagine someone somewhere in the import business on Ceres might accept them to buy stuff on Terra. There must be some trade and given the chance to maybe take fiat paper at a small discount, it would save the gold for inter Belt trade. If it's at all stable, I would be.

Just a thought.

Note to friend Holt, I see the Cerians drive on the right side of the road.

I guess they really are barbarians :)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 08:04:58 pm
Note to friend Holt, I see the Cerians drive on the right side of the road.

I guess they really are barbarians :)

It is to be expected unfortunately. One can not expect such uncultured and uncivilized wretches to drive on the correct side of the road. Honestly one is amazed they can even drive at all. Now please excuse me while I puff my pipe in an extremely pompous manner.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 08:36:49 pm
And yet somehow big Babbette never ate the smaller one, Is there hope for a people who don't quite seem to eat their young.

British culture, I learned all about it from Monty Python's documentaries.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 08:42:18 pm
And yet somehow big Babbette never ate the smaller one, Is there hope for a people who don't quite seem to eat their young.

British culture, I learned all about it from Monty Python's documentaries.


Well I'm sure it can't go any worse than my attempts to educate a wild child that was found in the jungles of Africa.
It wasn't until the child was fifteen that I realised the blasted thing was a boy. Well me and the gents had a chuckle over that but I still managed to turn the urchin into a fine upstanding British lady and I won Mr Pentsmith's finest penny farthing for my troubles.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 08, 2011, 09:15:11 pm
Would it be possible to move the discussion about homeschooling to another thread? 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 10:05:11 pm
Quote
Well I'm sure it can't go any worse than my attempts to educate a wild child that was found in the jungles of Africa.
It wasn't until the child was fifteen that I realised the blasted thing was a boy. Well me and the gents had a chuckle over that but I still managed to turn the urchin into a fine upstanding British lady and I won Mr Pentsmith's finest penny farthing for my troubles.
We Yanks miss out on so much of our heritage. Sigh.
For example half my ancestry is Scots. I have been told to avoid keeping sheep lest I fall in love and have my heart broken. It is some sort of genetic thing.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 10:08:31 pm
We Yanks miss out on so much of our heritage. Sigh.
For example half my ancestry is Scots. I have been told to avoid keeping sheep lest I fall in love and have my heart broken. It is some sort of genetic thing.


That's the Welsh mostly.
But really? I think that's why the USA and it's people are so....rambunctious. You don't have roots the same way a lot of the other nations do. You lack a common history. You poor bastards.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 08, 2011, 10:14:15 pm
You are right, may all 300,000,000 of us come home now, please?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 10:17:43 pm
No. We don't want you back. You are dead to us.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Bob G on February 09, 2011, 05:45:32 am
Stop trying to scream "RAAAH FREE MARKET FOREVER! GOVERNMENT BAD!" and actually try thinking about why these things came about. Public schooling was pushed by businessmen and industrialists who required a workforce capable of basic literacy.

And little else. Businessmen wanted malleable, marginally trainable cogs for their industrial machine, and used their influence on government to ensure a future supply of same. BEFORE public education as we know it today came into being, Frederic Bastiat remarked on how literate and politically involved American CITIZENS were. How on Earth is that possible?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 05:47:36 am
Dude don't make me laugh

Lets have a tough experiment :

A town were by magic all people only make 100$ per month and were there are 30 couples, with a total of 70 school age children, lets say 9 years old. There are also some random 100 adults roaming around

In the whole country the average salary is 500$ ... how on earth are those children be educated ? Without the government they are going to be cannibals  :'(

Lets have them in two rooms, each rooms with 35 students and lets have each parent dedicated 10% of his income to educate one children.

If one room require only one teacher then per room you get 35*10$ = 350 U$D per classroom  :o

How my the teacher will be paid more than the average town person ! Now keep in mind that there are 130 adults with low incomes of 100$ and you have these 2 sweet spot of 350 U$D per month ... isn't it safe to say that for that money the competition for being teacher will be very high ?

The whole idea that some people can't afford education is false, get a room with 30 students and you have enough revenue to at least one competent teacher.

Now add to the equation that there is a nearby town, RichTown, with people with income of 1000 U$D. Someone in RichTown have some spare 5000 U$D he want to invest, he sees that there are a lot of children without school in PoorTown and invest there to make some return.

The curriculum depends on what the parent think is important for the children, if he thinks that getting to Heaven is important than He might ask the teacher to teach it to his kids or he might looks for a religious school ... I particularly see nothing with that.



Does the Absence of public comic publication prevent people of having plenty of comics for single taste under the sun ?

There is a false US binary about education : Either Homeshooling or Public schooling.

What about Private schooling ? Either in the traditional Victorian way a la Harry Potter or in some form of private tutorship ?

Nope but comparing comics to education is a bit of a silly thing to do.

Also I'm not American. Try to keep up old chap.
Private schools as I mentioned tend to have their own issues. Example, the one I attended for a few years had a habit of teaching you to pass tests rather than actually help you understand the material. It also had a rather disturbing Christian slant that really I found to be out of place in this country and not conductive to education at all.
Many private schools are in fact good to average schools. But you get quite a few that try to teach dogma rather than facts or ones that fail to teach the children things they need to know instead preferring to teach them a very specific curriculum that focuses on some bizarre narrow aspect of the human race.

You find the same in homeschooling. I'm sure you've heard the horror story of the furry who homeschooled his child (poor thing) and insisted on an hour each day devoted to "Furry studies"

As for the whole "Victorian way" I would presume you mean the form of education the wealthy received and not the common education that was more widely available. The children of a wealthy household (anywhere between one and ten) all being taught by a small number of educated individuals who may in some cases outnumber the children they are educating.
Yes in that scenario I would like to point out just why this was the sole reserve of the wealthy. The cost. It is not cheap, it is not readily available and is in fact obscenely expensive. Very few can afford it. The removal of government isn't going to suddenly make it cheaper, if anything it will only become more expensive.

Stop trying to scream "RAAAH FREE MARKET FOREVER! GOVERNMENT BAD!" and actually try thinking about why these things came about. Public schooling was pushed by businessmen and industrialists who required a workforce capable of basic literacy.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 09, 2011, 08:10:38 am
Quote
My caution is in extending it from the small fraction of home-schoolers who first try it and then are successful enough to continue, to the whole collection of children. When you start with a small self-selected sample and extrapolate to everybody, the results often are not pretty.

Umm, yeah -- when "it" is some specific pattern or method.  E.g., if state schooling were acetominophen (a particular formula -- which it is, in that you can walk into just about any number of state- or state-oid-run classrooms in the world and see only slight, mostly cosmetic, variations among them) and homeschooling were ibuprofen, another but different specific formula, and the ibuprofen returned good results in a small self-selected sample of patients -- certainly in such a case it would be hazardous to jump to the conclusion that the ibuprofen should replace all, or even most, of the acetominophen usage.

But that's not what we're comparing.  "Homeschooling" is not one specified alternative method -- rather, it's more the philosophy of finding out what works with this specific student.  Your caution works out to "Here, doctor, is an over-the-counter one-dosage-for-all universal remedy.  You don't want to go extrapolating, based on a small self-selected sample, that the process of 'observing a patient and then prescribing a uniquely tailored mix of remedies, based on the patient's unique biochemistry, size, and ailments', will always, or even often, be better for that patient."

Since I've mentioned "observe" and "prescribe", you might like to suggest that homeschooling is too labor-intensive -- sure, it may return good results, but at the very high cost of one-on-one or one-on-few, with tons of time spent examining each student in detail, where the conventional school at least bangs out halfway-decent results with fewer adults tied up in teaching.  My experience in unschooling, and in private tutoring, argues otherwise.

We pulled our son out of 4th grade, and then for all intents and purposes academically ignored him thereafter.  Of course, he saw us reading, designing, calculating; heard us when we'd go off about our own latest learning; participated in family puzzle games (our Easter hunt clues grew to substantial puzzles, with math problems, geometric ones, literary ones -- the kids are all grown now and we still trade Easter riddles), and the like.  And we tried to answer, or help him answer, whatever questions he came up with.  But we did pretty much nothing that looked like formal, sit-down, textbook teaching.

When he was 15, he decided he wanted to start college when he was 17 (a young 17, him having a late-summer birthday; I started college at an old 17, having an autumn birthday).  He made up his own study program; chose books from the library and the used-book store; made himself flash cards and drilled himself; and scored 1260 on his SAT.  Could he have scored higher?  He thinks so.  Could I have provided him with a better program?  That's a loaded question -- objectively, yes.  But could he have received such a program from me?  Hell, no -- never was such a boy so headstrong in the "I'll do it myself!" way.  I will say that his disappointment in his 1260 did help open him a smidge to the idea of accepting a little help from others -- an important bit of learning in its own right, though one no standardized test will ever measure.

Give me a community where the kids are free to go wherever any average citizen may go (the average citizen does not follow the trained firefighter into a burning building, nor the trained surgeon into the operating room, kind of thing); give me a handful of other adults for sheer logistical support just in the first month; and make me the sole teacher for a couple hundred kids, K-10 in age, and in four years my students will beat the academic pants off any comparable state-trained group of kids -- and not only will I not be burned out by it, I'll probably agitate for more kids.  $50K a year salary (or less if someone can provide room & board & housekeeping).

Honest to goodness, how I'd love to be called on that claim!  I don't suppose anyone will -- but I've got a rarin' idea for a way to spend this coming summer.

(Oh, I wouldn't mind additional teachers -- I don't insist on hogging all the fun to myself!)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 08:39:47 am
And little else. Businessmen wanted malleable, marginally trainable cogs for their industrial machine, and used their influence on government to ensure a future supply of same. BEFORE public education as we know it today came into being, Frederic Bastiat remarked on how literate and politically involved American CITIZENS were. How on Earth is that possible?

So now you hate the capitalists? Be consistent for a few minutes would you kindly?

Also prior to a national formal system of education in the USA most children would have been going to schools run by the local church. They learnt to read so they could be appropriately scared of god.

Dude don't make me laugh


You kiddin bro? You guys make me laugh at least twice daily.

A town were by magic all people only make 100$ per month and were there are 30 couples, with a total of 70 school age children, lets say 9 years old. There are also some random 100 adults roaming around

In the whole country the average salary is 500$ ... how on earth are those children be educated ? Without the government they are going to be cannibals  :'(

Well the literacy rate would be piss poor. Over generations it would slide considerably until illiteracy became the norm. They'd also be fairly malleable in terms of politics, a politicians wet dream really.

Lets have them in two rooms, each rooms with 35 students and lets have each parent dedicated 10% of his income to educate one children.

If one room require only one teacher then per room you get 35*10$ = 350 U$D per classroom  :o

How my the teacher will be paid more than the average town person ! Now keep in mind that there are 130 adults with low incomes of 100$ and you have these 2 sweet spot of 350 U$D per month ... isn't it safe to say that for that money the competition for being teacher will be very high ?

See now here is your problem. A rather huge fallacy in your logic.
You are constantly screaming "RAAAH PUBLIC EDUMACATION BAD!" but here you are now advocating it. You are advocating the same system. Even private schools will share a lot in common with state ones. It's an inevitable part of the whole "Get a bunch of children in one room and get someone to teach them" formula. Plus you are forgetting that schools are actually rather expensive in their need for materials, equipment, etc.

The whole idea that some people can't afford education is false, get a room with 30 students and you have enough revenue to at least one competent teacher.

Fallacious fallacy number two: Assuming that every parent will pay for the kid to go this school. Poor get poorer, rich get richer HUZZAH FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Now add to the equation that there is a nearby town, RichTown, with people with income of 1000 U$D. Someone in RichTown have some spare 5000 U$D he want to invest, he sees that there are a lot of children without school in PoorTown and invest there to make some return.

You know that won't build a school. That would barely cover material costs for a few weeks. Seriously bro look into school budgets sometime.

The curriculum depends on what the parent think is important for the children, if he thinks that getting to Heaven is important than He might ask the teacher to teach it to his kids or he might looks for a religious school ... I particularly see nothing with that.

See now I do. Dogma is bad. No matter what kind of dogma it may be. Whether it is religious, political, etc. It is bad. It encourages you to think in only one way and stops you from examining other perspectives.
Dogma is bad for the human race, the more we use it the closer we get to extinction. So I'd rather live somewhere where you won't find it present in schools all the time.

Course I'm not from the USA fortunately so I haven't had to put up with the incessant stream of "WOOO DEMOCRACY!" and "USA USA USA USA!" shit that gets thrown out in the USA's school system.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 09, 2011, 09:06:32 am
You know, there are a wide variety of automobiles in the market, even with all the government regulation of the auto industry.  There's an amazing variety of foods available at just about any grocery store in the country.  There's a mind-boggling array of clothing and styles available, from thrift stores to the latest runway fashions.  And any department store is just loaded with a wide variety of goods for all sorts of tastes, desires, and styles. 

So why should anyone assume that, absent public schools, private schools would only come in one or two types or structures?  I would suspect that you would have private schooling to fit a variety of lifestyles and budgets, and practically any of them would be better than most of today's public schools.  Because, like any business, if a private school didn't do a good job, it would have a hard time retaining customers, and would go out of business. 

And with today's technology, more educational options could be explored than ever before.  The internet alone is a fantastic resource for anyone to learn about practically anything.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 09:36:08 am
You know, there are a wide variety of automobiles in the market, even with all the government regulation of the auto industry.  There's an amazing variety of foods available at just about any grocery store in the country.  There's a mind-boggling array of clothing and styles available, from thrift stores to the latest runway fashions.  And any department store is just loaded with a wide variety of goods for all sorts of tastes, desires, and styles. 

So why should anyone assume that, absent public schools, private schools would only come in one or two types or structures?  I would suspect that you would have private schooling to fit a variety of lifestyles and budgets, and practically any of them would be better than most of today's public schools.  Because, like any business, if a private school didn't do a good job, it would have a hard time retaining customers, and would go out of business. 

And with today's technology, more educational options could be explored than ever before.  The internet alone is a fantastic resource for anyone to learn about practically anything.

Psssst. The rest of the world already does that. It's only in the USA and third world where there is no variety in education.

But seriously now. You don't seem to grasp this whole thing. Education isn't cheap. Or easy. You're looking at up to ten years, quite often more if you get into higher education. Plus the people in this thread don't seem to grasp just how expensive it is, I mean really now $350 a month? To both run and equip the school and pay the teacher? That would be fucking hilarious.

Would all of them be better than public schools? No. They'd follow the same model.
Would some of them? Yes due to them charging a small fortune and actually investing that money in the education of the children.
Would many of them be worse? Oh fuck yes. "Now see here children, gravity is actually God's hand pushing down on you cos he don't want his children to be floating off the ground", woo that would help.

The problem with schools is that there are parents who think a bad job is a good one and it can take years if not decades to see the results of schooling in a manner that enables you to make an informed decision on whether or not it was good.
Plus who sets the standards? In most of the civilised world we have regulatory bodies (educational charities here in the UK) that set the standards for each qualification and ensure they are upheld. In an AnCap society what's to stop most schools simply becoming diploma shops? Walk in and buy whatever qualification you want. No need for lengthy courses or such just a pocket guide on the subject.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 09:44:40 am
Lets have them in two rooms, each rooms with 35 students and lets have each parent dedicated 10% of his income to educate one children.

If one room require only one teacher then per room you get 35*10$ = 350 U$D per classroom  :o

How my the teacher will be paid more than the average town person ! Now keep in mind that there are 130 adults with low incomes of 100$ and you have these 2 sweet spot of 350 U$D per month ... isn't it safe to say that for that money the competition for being teacher will be very high ?

See now here is your problem. A rather huge fallacy in your logic.
You are constantly screaming "RAAAH PUBLIC EDUMACATION BAD!" but here you are now advocating it. You are advocating the same system.
::) One thing is being comically misguided and another is pure intellectual dishonesty ... So private citizens making use of their own money is the same has the Government taking A money to educate B children ?

Lets at least keep honesty living

Lets have them in two rooms, each rooms with 35 students and lets have each parent dedicated 10% of his income to educate one children.

If one room require only one teacher then per room you get 35*10$ = 350 U$D per classroom  :o

How my the teacher will be paid more than the average town person ! Now keep in mind that there are 130 adults with low incomes of 100$ and you have these 2 sweet spot of 350 U$D per month ... isn't it safe to say that for that money the competition for being teacher will be very high ?

See now here is your problem. A rather huge fallacy in your logic.
You are constantly screaming "RAAAH PUBLIC EDUMACATION BAD!" but here you are now advocating it. You are advocating the same system. Even private schools will share a lot in common with state ones. It's an inevitable part of the whole "Get a bunch of children in one room and get someone to teach them" formula. Plus you are forgetting that schools are actually rather expensive in their need for materials, equipment, etc.

Even private schools will share a lot in common with state ones. It's an inevitable part of the whole "Get a bunch of children in one room and get someone to teach them" formula.

For one thing I will swear for the ''Get them in a room, make them compete and teach them'' but then I am only ONE HUMAN. I can't claim to know how to solve Humanities all problem or invent the silver bullet of education, this is why I'm for a free market.

For my children I will pay for the Belgian style education system that I grew up with and If I get in position of financial security I might start an educational project of my own to provide such education to other children.

Other might find other methods to be more appropriate and I will not prevent them of experimenting them, maybe they will touch the jackpot.

Plus you are forgetting that schools are actually rather expensive in their need for materials, equipment, etc.

For half of my life I was educated under the following conditions : 0.25 $ chinese built pencil, 5 notebooks for 2$, a humble uniform, if I was lucky I got a very old book of math, the buildings were almost always old ... I did managed to learn to read and write.


The particular king of education YOU have mind might be expensive, but others might have what they need cheaper. You have the ''All Your children are belong to US'' Sindrome mate ... and nope I don't live in the US.

There is but one universally needed education, which is to learn to read and write, anything else is optional. Any further knowledge depends on the personal inclination of each and what they pretend to do for their life.
There is no absolute, so there is no hand of the world if parents decide to teach their kids evolution or give them 5 hours of religious studies atop of their elementary education.

If one want to be a doctor then once he has age he goes to whatever form Medical school will assume, be it has intern or a lengthy multiyear program or crystal ball weed training.

Similarly those who love economics, those who want to learn mechanics or whatever float their boat.

PS:

On the question of how much is needed to run a school .... well buddy you know in a place where most people make 100$ per month having 5000$ of inicial investissment and a income of 1000$ per month is good enough to sustain an investissment,

And again it is too low for the particular kind of school YOU like ... for the a shade, table and chair for the kids, a living and breathing teacher, a chalk board and a even a very old books can go a long way to teach those kids reading and writing ... not every body needs kryptonite and child pornog ... I mean biology courses
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 10:06:57 am

See the beauty of Holt government schools

Kids get those lubrificant gels and lets see how anal intercourse is more than normal.

UK Schools Get Ready for LGBT History

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7892.6492.0.0 (http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7892.6492.0.0)


Nick Clegg: faith schools should teach children that homosexuality is ‘normal Traduction : Hey Me has a politicians know better what moral to teach your kids

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6980928/Nick-Clegg-faith-schools-should-teach-children-that-homosexuality-is-normal.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6980928/Nick-Clegg-faith-schools-should-teach-children-that-homosexuality-is-normal.html)

ETA:

Quote
Maths—teaching statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population, and using gay characters in scenarios for maths problems;

Design and technology—encouraging pupils to make symbols linked to the gay rights movement;

Science—studying animal species where the male takes a leading role in raising young, such as emperor penguins and sea horses, and staging class discussions on different family structures, including same-sex parents;

Geography—examining the transformation of San Francisco’s Castro district in the 1960s from a working-class Irish area to the world’s first “gay neighborhood,” and considering why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities;

Languages—using gay characters in role play scenarios, and teaching “lgbt vocabulary.”

Religious parent using is own damn money to teach his children about the Kingdom of Heaven ... Racist Nazi OMG Theocracy  ::)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 10:45:33 am
Note to thread which has become Schools in AnCap, how to.

Look at how it was done in the American old west, not Cornwall, you know who you are,  We've all seen the one room schools run by the townsfolk in movies and TV. Somehow it worked, backwoods Victorian Americans and Canadians, no doubt, were plenty literate, could do math, find Asia on a map.

I is a prodict off the Chicago Publick Skools and I ain't no better.

Another reading recommendation now. The Little House books are for kids and spawned a sappy TV show but are pretty realistic. Ingalls-Wilder was there. Heck, she taught in one of those schools.

 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 10:47:32 am
::) One thing is being comically misguided and another is pure intellectual dishonesty ... So private citizens making use of their own money is the same has the Government taking A money to educate B children ?

Lets at least keep honesty living

Honestly I'm seeing a pattern. You don't actually care about the education or schools themselves in this argument. Like most anarchists you actually seem to like and support the services government provides and expect (if not demand them) BUT you hate the fact that government is involved. I would wager on you being the first to complain in a genuine anarchist society as nobody suddenly stepped up to build roads, maintain waterworks, provide your home with power, etc.



For one thing I will swear for the ''Get them in a room, make them compete and teach them'' but then I am only ONE HUMAN. I can't claim to know how to solve Humanities all problem or invent the silver bullet of education, this is why I'm for a free market.

For my children I will pay for the Belgian style education system that I grew up with and If I get in position of financial security I might start an educational project of my own to provide such education to other children.

Other might find other methods to be more appropriate and I will not prevent them of experimenting them, maybe they will touch the jackpot.

Public state run education provides a baseline. A minimum standard. One that in comparison to many others is rather high (well maybe not in the USA). Here in the UK it is effectively a lighthouse with everything being relative to it. No matter which education option you pursue you will be tested according to the national curriculum and graded accordingly. Whether you go to a state run school, a private school or your parents teach you themselves. You will all be tested to the same standard. It isn't flawless as you have many students who instead of understanding the material are just taught to pass the test, but in comparison to the benefits it is an acceptable flaw. Our government is out to make it easier to set up independent schools and is even offering financial aid so parents and communities can establish their own schools. Would you oppose that too on simple idealogical grounds?

For half of my life I was educated under the following conditions : 0.25 $ chinese built pencil, 5 notebooks for 2$, a humble uniform, if I was lucky I got a very old book of math, the buildings were almost always old ... I did managed to learn to read and write.

This is another general problem among anarchists. You lack the ability to grasp more than what you see in front of you.
You have those supplies for the entire class plus a stock of spares. Then you have the occasional big expenditure on furniture and building repairs. Then you have general building maintenance, groundskeeping and furniture maintenance. Then the heating, power and water bills. in the event you decide to go to one of these external educational regulatory bodies in order to ensure that employers take the children's qualifications seriously then you have to pay their fees for each child.

The costs add up.


There is but one universally needed education, which is to learn to read and write, anything else is optional. Any further knowledge depends on the personal inclination of each and what they pretend to do for their life.
There is no absolute, so there is no hand of the world if parents decide to teach their kids evolution or give them 5 hours of religious studies atop of their elementary education.

If one want to be a doctor then once he has age he goes to whatever form Medical school will assume, be it has intern or a lengthy multiyear program or crystal ball weed training.

Similarly those who love economics, those who want to learn mechanics or whatever float their boat.


So fuck maths, basic physics and biology? Oh and geography? Fuck that shit.

The education system I endorse is the one that ensures a future for mankind. The one that means a hundred years from now our species will still exist and will continue to exist.

My friends, it has often been said that I like humanity. Friends, I like humanity. No, friends, I love humanity!
I love technology, I love colonisation. I love art. I love progress, construction, I love farming, and exploration.

Humanity on the prairies, in streets, in grasslands, in frozen tundras, through deserts, on the sea, in the air, in space. I love everything humanity can and will do.

I love splitting the atom to power our homes bringing that destructive force under our control for useful purposes.
My heart leaps with joy whenever man finds himself on a new shore and gazes at the next horizon to be conquered.
And there is nothing like that leap into the unknown when man first uses a new machine. And the feeling that comes when that machine is integrated into our lives, is such an exquisite feeling.
Like when the workers enter the factory and take up their tools. It moves me deep within my heart to watch them create something greater than that they could make alone, pooling their labour towards a common goal.
The sight of criminals being imprisoned is an irresistible delight. Watching those who seek to harm humanity be punished for their misdeeds has its own unique delight.

When a group of people who cling to the past are ground under the wheels of progress, their outdated notions of the world reduced to naught more than an entry in a history book, I'm in ecstasy.
I love it when an ideology is put to the test in the fire that is our world. It's so sad to see them slowly burn away until only parts of them remain.
I love to see one ideology try to crush all others only to see it absorb more and more of those it seeks to destroy until the end result is nothing like the dream.

Gentlemen...all I ask for is humanity to do what it does. To make any other intelligent life in this universe curse our very existence thanks to our being present in every corner of the universe. Gentlemen, I ask you as my fellow humans, what is it you really want? Do you wish for a future for our species as I do? Do you wish for a never ending journey? A journey built with iron, and lightning and dreams? Do you ask for a journey that will leave no stone unturned, leaving no pocket of this universe unexplored and untouched by human hands? Do you ask for no rest and no ending? To eternally go on? Conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet and its whims and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when we have conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still we will be beginning?

The universe or nothing. Which shall it be?


And again it is too low for the particular kind of school YOU like ... for the a shade, table and chair for the kids, a living and breathing teacher, a chalk board and a even a very old books can go a long way to teach those kids reading and writing ... not every body needs kryptonite and child pornog ... I mean biology courses

What kind of school did you go to? Seriously I don't recall biology being about pornography unless you mean the part where they teach you about human reproduction.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 11:00:09 am

See the beauty of Holt government schools

Kids get those lubrificant gels and lets see how anal intercourse is more than normal.

UK Schools Get Ready for LGBT History

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7892.6492.0.0 (http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7892.6492.0.0)


Nick Clegg: faith schools should teach children that homosexuality is ‘normal Traduction : Hey Me has a politicians know better what moral to teach your kids

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6980928/Nick-Clegg-faith-schools-should-teach-children-that-homosexuality-is-normal.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6980928/Nick-Clegg-faith-schools-should-teach-children-that-homosexuality-is-normal.html)

Religious parent using is own damn money to teach his children about the Kingdom of Heaven ... Racist Nazi OMG Theocracy  ::)

A lot of these just seem to be shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring really.
The first article even points out that the lesson plans are optional (and thus not likely to see much use).
Is it wrong to tell faith schools to teach that homosexuality isn't something to hate? That it's wrong to dislike someone based purely on what they want to stick their dick in? (so long as what they're sticking it in is able to make an informed decision in regards to whether or not it wants aforementioned dick in it)

In short is it wrong for the government to say: "Faith schools. Do what you do but don't educate the kids in a way that makes them hate other people based purely on their beliefs, sexuality or race." Honestly I would say no. It isn't wrong. It's the right thing to do.

The first link is just some religious nutjob who is convinced that homosexuality is destroying the UK. Completely ignoring two terms of Labour and the general fuckup that they were (There's no money left. lol)

The second. Well the Lib Dems have a history of jumping on any bandwagon that will get them some votes. Aside from the automatic asylum rights thing the stuff proposed isn't bad. Ensuring faith schools have anti-homophobic bullying policies and civil partnerships to be legally equal to marriage. Those are perfectly reasonable things. Now the blood donation ban one is a bit...hand wavey I'm not an expert on the field of blood donation so I'd need some more informed opinions on that one before I'd go either way, but on the off hand it seems reasonable enough to ban them based on what I've read purely on cost to benefit grounds.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 11:11:37 am
::) One thing is being comically misguided and another is pure intellectual dishonesty ... So private citizens making use of their own money is the same has the Government taking A money to educate B children ?

Lets at least keep honesty living

Honestly I'm seeing a pattern. You don't actually care about the education or schools themselves in this argument. Like most anarchists you actually seem to like and support the services government provides and expect (if not demand them) BUT you hate the fact that government is involved. I would wager on you being the first to complain in a genuine anarchist society as nobody suddenly stepped up to build roads, maintain waterworks, provide your home with power, etc.

You were almost there, then you missed the argument completly ... what most anarchists says is the following : The government is not an indispensable condition to have those things.

Gosh now is the government who have invented education ? electricity, roads, piped water ?

No we are a bunch of little Hippies who want to live in hobbits houses ... off course we want progress, we just think the government is not indispensable for it.

This is another general problem among anarchists. You lack the ability to grasp more than what you see in front of you.
You have those supplies for the entire class plus a stock of spares. Then you have the occasional big expenditure on furniture and building repairs. Then you have general building maintenance, groundskeeping and furniture maintenance. Then the heating, power and water bills. in the event you decide to go to one of these external educational regulatory bodies in order to ensure that employers take the children's qualifications seriously then you have to pay their fees for each child.

The costs add up.

In short : Education cost infinite amount of money ?

I gave a tough experiment : Even if parents got 10 % of their incomes dedicate it to the education, you could have enough for educating them if you started with 30 pupils class room.

You laughed because you were too busy not thinking to understand that in my scenario you have a 100$ mediam income ... if we used a 10 000 USD mediam income it would have been 30000 $ of revenue per class room.

have a 6 class room primary school and you have 180 000 USD per month ... believe there are bussines who are running on much smaller margins

Similarly those who love economics, those who want to learn mechanics or whatever float their boat.


So frack maths, basic physics and biology? Oh and geography? frack that shit.
[/quote]

No, let each choose what they want to learn, if one want a pure encyclopedic knowledge or another want a practical one, have each pay for it and make decision about it.

You are argument about standards is funny, because you know withouht almighty government people will become cannibals, schools will become diplomes factories and people will hire morons under hypnosis of pieces of paper...  are you serious ?

There will always be standards, the difference is that they will be voluntary, either if one want to follow the one of Catholic Church schools, who used to be pretty good or of some famous college is up to each citizen
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 11:15:57 am
Such language.

Human fact, 11% of us are left handed and 10% or thereabouts are gay or bi or tend that way or whatever. Neither one says a damned thing about who they are.

How about a big, platonic, above the belt only, no touchies, group hug?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 11:19:00 am
A lot of these just seem to be shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring really.
The first article even points out that the lesson plans are optional (and thus not likely to see much use).
Is it wrong to tell faith schools to teach that homosexuality isn't something to hate? That it's wrong to dislike someone based purely on what they want to stick their dick in? (so long as what they're sticking it in is able to make an informed decision in regards to whether or not it wants aforementioned dick in it)

In short is it wrong for the government to say: "Faith schools. Do what you do but don't educate the kids in a way that makes them hate other people based purely on their beliefs, sexuality or race." Honestly I would say no. It isn't wrong. It's the right thing to do.

Here lies the confusion in your mind : Christians don't hate homosexuality, they just don't like it. There is a difference between not liking the act of homosexuality and keeping your distance and being willing to take a torch burn to the stake people you suspect are gay.

There is a difference between the Monk preaching against the immorality of sexual prevarication and Adolf Hitler sending gays to the Gas chambers ...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 11:22:44 am
Such language.

Human fact, 11% of us are left handed and 10% or thereabouts are gay or bi or tend that way or whatever. Neither one says a damned thing about who they are.

How about a big, platonic, above the belt only, no touchies, group hug?

Cool British good manners doesn't work for ever ... sometimes you must get dirty.

Group hug ? I might consider it since it sure most participants don't have enough testosterone to start an erection anyway.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 11:25:56 am
You were almost there, then you missed the argument completly ... what most anarchists says is the following : The government is not an indispensable condition to have those things.

Gosh now is the government who have invented education ? electricity, roads, piped water ?

No we are a bunch of little Hippies who want to live in hobbits houses ... off course we want progress, we just think the government is not indispensable for it.

So in the end you do want government. Inevitably any company big and wealthy enough to provide those is going to become a state. One day the head of said company will make the transition from CEO to Emperor. You'll still be paying taxes. You'll just be paying them in a more confusing manner to more people.




In short : Education cost infinite amount of money ?

I gave a tough experiment : Even if parents got 10 % of their incomes dedicate it to the education, you could have enough for educating them if you started with 30 pupils class room.

You laughed because you were too busy not thinking to understand that in my scenario you have a 100$ mediam income ... if we used a 10 000 USD mediam income it would have been 30000 $ of revenue per class room.

have a 6 class room primary school and you have 180 000 USD per month ... believe there are bussines who are running on much smaller margins


You know what I just realised something. The basic scenario is in itself flawed as we are using an economic base you came up with that has no relation to the real world outside the use of the US Dollar. As such you can fluff it to suit your whims. We don't know what the cost of daily essentials is or how the income of said families relates to the cost of living.

I still say you are massively underestimating the cost of running a school. I would recommend going and asking the headteacher/principal of your local school about his budget and just claim you're from a university's social studies department or something equally nebulous.

No, let each choose what they want to learn, if one want a pure encyclopedic knowledge or another want a practical one, have each pay for it and make decision about it.

Basic numeracy is practical. Map reading is practical. Being able to tell where your country is on a map of the world is practical. The basic concept of gravity and a general knowledge of human anatomy is practical.

For instance take three pieces of knowledge: Fluids always flows in relation to gravity barring external influence. The location of the lungs in the human body. Fluid in the lungs causes you to drown.

From that you can extrapolate that if someone is bleeding into their lung. A way to solve it is to remove the plunger from a syringe and insert it into the lung at an angle that causes the blood to flow out of the body via the syringe. Hey ho basic science and anatomy save the motherfucking day.

You are argument about standards is funny, because you know withouht almighty government people will become cannibals, schools will become diplomes factories and people will hire morons under hypnosis of pieces of paper...  are you serious ?

There will always be standards, the difference is that they will be voluntary, either if one want to follow the one of Catholic Church schools, who used to be pretty good or of some famous college is up to each citizen

So you do support the state. You support every service it provides you and demand said services. But you still hate them?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 11:29:40 am
Sams, Christian describes a huge range of beliefs. That Palin woman, The Pope, The Russian Orthodox Patriarch. a range. Even if we are just talking about the Evangelical fundamentalist flocks, as seen on TV, which seem intent on grabbing the name, there is a range.

And Hitler and gays, I hear he had issues.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 11:32:34 am
Cool British good manners doesn't work for ever ... sometimes you must get dirty.

Group hug ? I might consider it since it sure most participants don't have enough testosterone to start an erection anyway.

Yes. When people start hating on each other we have to get involved. Can't have a bunch of nutjobs trying to say that hating someone else is not only the right thing to do it is essential if you want to go to the sky wizards super party palace when you die.

I'm just Arnie the simple homo farrier trying to make a living, stop hating me bro.

Here lies the confusion in your mind : Christians don't hate homosexuality, they just don't like it. There is a difference between not liking the act of homosexuality and keeping your distance and being willing to take a torch burn to the stake people you suspect are gay.

There is a difference between the Monk preaching against the immorality of sexual prevarication and Adolf Hitler sending gays to the Gas chambers ...

Why do we all have to hate each other though? What's wrong with simply saying "No. It's not cool to hate people for disagreeing with you or doing things that don't hurt anyone but you don't agree with."
Why is hating Arnie the homo farrier for no justifiable reason your inalienable right? What did Arnie ever do to you?

Sams, Christian describes a huge range of beliefs. That Palin woman, The Pope, The Russian Orthodox Patriarch. a range. Even if we are just talking about the Evangelical fundamentalist flocks, as seen on TV, which seem intent on grabbing the name, there is a range.

And Hitler and gays, I hear he had issues.


Honestly I'm starting to worry about this guy. He's not very consistent nor is he a nice guy. He just seems to hate the state for the sake of hating the state. I think he may have been molested as a child by a country.
"Now Sams show us on the doll where France touched you"
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 11:42:55 am
Funny how some people see, "none of my business" as limiting and others see it as freedom. I prefer the later sort but then it's none of my business.

Also, the difference between government and the Mafia, you don't get to vote for the Godfather.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 11:46:06 am
Arnie the homo farrier?
I used to know a one armed pimp from Nebraska but you got me beat.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 11:48:29 am
Funny how some people see, "none of my business" as limiting and others see it as freedom. I prefer the later sort but then it's none of my business.

Also, the difference between government and the Mafia, you don't get to vote for the Godfather.

I'd say that depends on the form of government.

In the UK it's more like 3 different mafia groups all competing with each other but hampered by insanely complex rules of conduct. I think that is why in general our government is more...well it's not as hostile towards the people as the US government and actually tries to stick to the state party ideology whereas the US political parties all tend to be neoliberal globalists once they get into power.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 11:53:09 am
Next time you revise Schaupenhauer don't masturbate ... otherwise you will always be that so pathetic.

You were almost there, then you missed the argument completly ... what most anarchists says is the following : The government is not an indispensable condition to have those things.

Gosh now is the government who have invented education ? electricity, roads, piped water ?

No we are a bunch of little Hippies who want to live in hobbits houses ... off course we want progress, we just think the government is not indispensable for it.

So in the end you do want government. Inevitably any company big and wealthy enough to provide those is going to become a state. One day the head of said company will make the transition from CEO to Emperor. You'll still be paying taxes. You'll just be paying them in a more confusing manner to more people.




In short : Education cost infinite amount of money ?

I gave a tough experiment : Even if parents got 10 % of their incomes dedicate it to the education, you could have enough for educating them if you started with 30 pupils class room.

You laughed because you were too busy not thinking to understand that in my scenario you have a 100$ mediam income ... if we used a 10 000 USD mediam income it would have been 30000 $ of revenue per class room.

have a 6 class room primary school and you have 180 000 USD per month ... believe there are bussines who are running on much smaller margins


You know what I just realised something. The basic scenario is in itself flawed as we are using an economic base you came up with that has no relation to the real world outside the use of the US Dollar. As such you can fluff it to suit your whims. We don't know what the cost of daily essentials is or how the income of said families relates to the cost of living.

I still say you are massively underestimating the cost of running a school. I would recommend going and asking the headteacher/principal of your local school about his budget and just claim you're from a university's social studies department or something equally nebulous.

No, let each choose what they want to learn, if one want a pure encyclopedic knowledge or another want a practical one, have each pay for it and make decision about it.

Basic numeracy is practical. Map reading is practical. Being able to tell where your country is on a map of the world is practical. The basic concept of gravity and a general knowledge of human anatomy is practical.

For instance take three pieces of knowledge: Fluids always flows in relation to gravity barring external influence. The location of the lungs in the human body. Fluid in the lungs causes you to drown.

From that you can extrapolate that if someone is bleeding into their lung. A way to solve it is to remove the plunger from a syringe and insert it into the lung at an angle that causes the blood to flow out of the body via the syringe. Hey ho basic science and anatomy save the motherfracking day.

You are argument about standards is funny, because you know withouht almighty government people will become cannibals, schools will become diplomes factories and people will hire morons under hypnosis of pieces of paper...  are you serious ?

There will always be standards, the difference is that they will be voluntary, either if one want to follow the one of Catholic Church schools, who used to be pretty good or of some famous college is up to each citizen

So you do support the state. You support every service it provides you and demand said services. But you still hate them?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 09, 2011, 12:12:36 pm

But seriously now. You don't seem to grasp this whole thing. Education isn't cheap. Or easy. You're looking at up to ten years, quite often more if you get into higher education. Plus the people in this thread don't seem to grasp just how expensive it is, I mean really now $350 a month? To both run and equip the school and pay the teacher? That would be fracking hilarious.
Automobiles are expensive, yet most Americans somehow manage to have one.  And when it comes to cheaper things like cell phones, just about everybody manages to have one, even the homeless.  The costs of education are variable, like anything else.  And like other efforts, government-subsidized schools have little incentive to economize their expenses or streamline their processes.

Quote
The problem with schools is that there are parents who think a bad job is a good one and it can take years if not decades to see the results of schooling in a manner that enables you to make an informed decision on whether or not it was good.
Plus who sets the standards? In most of the civilised world we have regulatory bodies (educational charities here in the UK) that set the standards for each qualification and ensure they are upheld. In an AnCap society what's to stop most schools simply becoming diploma shops? Walk in and buy whatever qualification you want. No need for lengthy courses or such just a pocket guide on the subject.

Blah, blah, blah.  For you, the problem with schools are bad parents, and you want to force them to adhere to some standards set up by some appointed body of educators. 
Educational certification and standards are easily derived without government, just as other standards have been developed.   Parents, even bad parents, could and would learn what kinds of schools produce better students, as privately-developed standardized tests and educational awards could tell them, as well as the eventual employment prospects of the students. 

Diploma mills produce things that you can hang on your wall, but they don't produce skills in the people that buy them--as would be obvious to most employers looking to hire people. Employers with high demands or specialized skillsets could have their own employment tests for potential employees, if they didn't trust the diplomas of schools (or perhaps just certain schools).

Education is essentially no different than any other enterprise or service.  Competition does wonders when the business faces the loss of customers and the danger of going out of business--even in the education business.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 12:32:02 pm
This talk of the costs of education reminds of those numbers for the cost of raising a child from birth to 21. You know the ones, last I looked something like half a million bucks. So a youmg couple with 2 kids had better get ready to excrete a million from some orifice over the next 2 decades.

Balderdash!

I was raised one of 4 by a poor working stiff and lacked for nothing money could buy.

The numbers for schooling are just as nebulous. Really folks, a building, some furniture, books to be replaced or updated as needed, a staff. It can be done cheaper free range.

I have read Japanese schools don't have janitors, they have mopping clubs or some such. Vandalisim is unknown.

Mass production schools are a Prussian innovation. That scares me.

http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 12:50:36 pm
The numbers for schooling are just as nebulous. Really folks, a building, some furniture, books to be replaced or updated as needed, a staff. It can be done cheaper free range.

You know Spudit children can't learn unless the building is at least less than 5 year old, there are electronic microscopes ... I mean you really can't think it is possible to educate children without dumping money in a Black Holes  :-\

How the children are supposed to know the hobbit without see one ?

\Sarcasm

I agree with you, that Holt guy is just making it sound like it require infinite amount of money
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 12:55:51 pm
Thanks

No personal sides taken in the personal dispute.

Just the facts.  

I am suspicious of large scale anything. Suspicious as hell.

It does have it's place, Boeing can't work out of a garage.  
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 01:01:03 pm
Sounds to me Spudit you belong to the sort of fraction of society who generally doesn't like anyone. Who sees everyone else just living their lives and feels some indescribable rage boiling inside them about it.

Tell me about yourself Spudit. I am curious. Tell me about your childhood, your relationship with your parents, how the other children treated you as a child. What circumstances led to you?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 09, 2011, 01:04:21 pm
Quote
So you do support the state. You support every service it provides you and demand said services. But you still hate them?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Your hallucination that a state is necessary to provide electricity, education, roads, medical care, scientific progress or anything at all is not his problem.  The belief that merely repeating something often enough (such as "All that stuff's impossible without a state!  All that stuff's impossible without a state!") will make it true is something worth outgrowing -- preferably before kindergarten.

Quote
Sounds to me Spudit you belong to the sort of fraction of society who generally doesn't like anyone.

Textbook projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 01:10:54 pm
Quote
So you do support the state. You support every service it provides you and demand said services. But you still hate them?
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Your hallucination that a state is necessary to provide electricity, education, roads, medical care, scientific progress or anything at all is not his problem.  The belief that merely repeating something often enough (such as "All that stuff's impossible without a state!  All that stuff's impossible without a state!") will make it true is something worth outgrowing -- preferably before kindergarten.

Oh I don't. Seeing as most of these things are provided in various nations privately. What I am pointing out is that a state provides an environment where it is easier to do so. It is easier to build a power plant in the UK or USA than it is to build one in Somalia. Sure in Somalia there's no regulatory problems to worry about so you can build whatever you like, however on the downside you have the problem of the total lack of any order which means your power plant is going to get looted and trashed unless you hire a small army to maintain it.

On the other hand you can go to the UK, accept all the regulatory problems, build your power plant eventually and not have to worry about the locals stealing everything isn't nailed down with a small force of rent-a-cops being all the security you need.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 09, 2011, 01:50:49 pm
Posting in another thread on a political debate has suggested something story-related to me.

What would be the deadliest possible thing for those soldiers at the Hotel Crillon to do?

How about absolutely nothing... and then returning to Earth from where they came. But then, a week later, another bunch comes... and goes. And then another. And the fifth one or so manufactures their incident, or whatever - after people have gotten tired of being nervous and watchful.

Actually, this is too easy - and the Cereans wouldn't actually fall for that stunt. Harris, of course, already blew any chance the UW had of fooling enough Cereans to make their plans easier.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 02:04:50 pm
Posting in another thread on a political debate has suggested something story-related to me.

What would be the deadliest possible thing for those soldiers at the Hotel Crillon to do?

How about absolutely nothing... and then returning to Earth from where they came. But then, a week later, another bunch comes... and goes. And then another. And the fifth one or so manufactures their incident, or whatever - after people have gotten tired of being nervous and watchful.

Actually, this is too easy - and the Cereans wouldn't actually fall for that stunt. Harris, of course, already blew any chance the UW had of fooling enough Cereans to make their plans easier.

Just offer them as "police for hire". Say the merchants on a street would like a security presence to protect their businesses and such? What better protection could you ask for then a bunch of armed, armoured and disciplined soldiers? Or perhaps a big company is sick of the cost of maintaining its own security force? They could outsource it to these big burly soldier men. The Spaceport worried about security? These guys can help you out there too. Got a need for a lot of heavily armed men on short notice? They can help you out for a price.

Keep doing that for ten years providing a consistent standard of excellence and you'll be able to justifiably tax the residents of Ceres for protection. Just swallow up all the competition or drive em out. Bonus points if you end up being the only security outfit on the planetoid.

Twenty years on? You can start expanding the presence to other facets of Earth society. Start bringing in laws, etc. You know start with the feel good stuff. The concessions made to the workers back on Earth all those years ago. Minimum safety standards in the workplace, health standards in regards to food and medicine, that sort of thing.

By the time fifty years have passed you won't see any difference between Ceres and any Earth nation.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 04:17:44 pm
It is the same on Earth, gear a cultural revolution and the country will get down down the line

Posting in another thread on a political debate has suggested something story-related to me.

What would be the deadliest possible thing for those soldiers at the Hotel Crillon to do?

How about absolutely nothing... and then returning to Earth from where they came. But then, a week later, another bunch comes... and goes. And then another. And the fifth one or so manufactures their incident, or whatever - after people have gotten tired of being nervous and watchful.

Actually, this is too easy - and the Cereans wouldn't actually fall for that stunt. Harris, of course, already blew any chance the UW had of fooling enough Cereans to make their plans easier.

Just offer them as "police for hire". Say the merchants on a street would like a security presence to protect their businesses and such? What better protection could you ask for then a bunch of armed, armoured and disciplined soldiers? Or perhaps a big company is sick of the cost of maintaining its own security force? They could outsource it to these big burly soldier men. The Spaceport worried about security? These guys can help you out there too. Got a need for a lot of heavily armed men on short notice? They can help you out for a price.

Keep doing that for ten years providing a consistent standard of excellence and you'll be able to justifiably tax the residents of Ceres for protection. Just swallow up all the competition or drive em out. Bonus points if you end up being the only security outfit on the planetoid.

Twenty years on? You can start expanding the presence to other facets of Earth society. Start bringing in laws, etc. You know start with the feel good stuff. The concessions made to the workers back on Earth all those years ago. Minimum safety standards in the workplace, health standards in regards to food and medicine, that sort of thing.

By the time fifty years have passed you won't see any difference between Ceres and any Earth nation.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 09, 2011, 04:22:58 pm
Say the merchants on a street would like a security presence to protect their businesses and such? What better protection could you ask for then a bunch of armed, armoured and disciplined soldiers?
I think you mean, what could be worse?  Soldiers are trained to kill people and destroy stuff.  That may be what government officials want "police" to do, but it is not what people in a free society want.

Or perhaps a big company is sick of the cost of maintaining its own security force? They could outsource it to these big burly soldier men.
Since their service would be grossly inferior, the soldiers would have to charge a great deal less than the competition.  Whoever is bankrolling the money-losing operation would have to pay and pay and pay.  Would a nearly bankrupt Earth government be willing to do that?  I don't think so.

I suppose it is possible, but only if we make some other assumptions--perhaps some high government official is insane, or perhaps a group of politically powerful people divert some of the subsidies into their own pockets.

The people of Ceres won't forget that representatives of the Earth government murdered innocent people and threatened to murder more while enslaving everyone.  The business would have to be owned by one or more people without ties to Earth's government.  Would Earth's government give that much wealth to one or more people and then simply hope that after 10 years they would follow the government's orders?  Even government officials aren't that stupid.

Got a need for a lot of heavily armed men on short notice? They can help you out for a price.
What need would that be?  Repelling an invasion from Earth?

Keep doing that for ten years providing a consistent standard of excellence
The soldiers don't understand the ZAP, so couldn't provide excellent service without a) much training, which most would fail or b) constant close supervision by someone who does understand the ZAP.  Either would greatly increase costs.

and you'll be able to justifiably tax the residents of Ceres for protection.
Taxation couldn't happen gradually.  As soon as the business deliberately violated the ZAP, it would be understood by everyone to be a criminal gang, and would be treated as one.  (There are no government schools, so far more people than on Earth would be well educated.)  The other security businesses would oppose it.  The people of Ceres (most of whom are trained to use deadly weapons) would oppose it.

But that's almost beside the point.  Every employee of the business has to face the decision (when first being ordered to tax) of whether to become a criminal.  (On Ceres, each individual is responsible for his or her actions.)  Those employees have been not only following the ZAP for as long as they've been on Ceres, they've been enforcing it too.  I suspect that a good fraction of the employees will have internalized the ZAP and will not want to think of themselves as criminals.  Some of the rest will have made good friends on Ceres and will not want to fight them.  Others, while perhaps not agreeing with the ZAP completely, will see how much better life is there than on Earth, and will want to continue to be a part of that good life.  So, when given the order to become criminals, a significant fraction of the employees (perhaps the great majority) will quit and join the populace.

Just swallow up all the competition or drive em out.
Without government help, you can't "swallow up" the competition, especially when the competition is far more efficient than you are.  New competitors will take your business faster than you can swallow.

If by "drive them out" you mean by providing superior value, it would be extremely expensive (requiring massive subsidies from Earth), but I doubt it would work.  You'd have to be extremely good at providing a wide variety of services to capture even a majority of it, even with artificially low prices.  And there will be those who prefer dealing with a small firm run by people they know well.

If by "drive them out" you mean by using aggression or threats of aggression, then that would simply be another way to declare the business to be a criminal gang.

Twenty years ... fifty years ...
No gradualism.  A legitimate business does not engage in criminal activity (in a free society).  Once it does, it becomes a criminal gang.  It might or might not succeed in conquering an educated populace and becoming a state, but it won't do that gradually.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 05:16:49 pm
Hey Holt

What the hell did I do to fizz you off, refuse to take sides?
Screw you both.

Spudit
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 05:37:10 pm
Hey Holt

What the hell did I do to fizz you off, refuse to take sides?
Screw you both.

Spudit

thanks for the love buddy ... it is great how people treat you when you don't send them &^%$£"£$%^&&^%$$ themselves.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 05:39:25 pm

Fallacious fallacies that are themselves fallacious.


So you assume that just because they're soldiers they are inferior to rent-a-cops in providing security?
You assume they are all braindead retards who look to blow shit up constantly?
You assume that they will be unable to prevent themselves from killing something for more than five minutes?

You completely forget that most of what soldiers do is secure things. There is a reason why it's troops guarding military bases and not police.
Store owners want their wares safe. Having a bunch of soldiers around to beat the crap out of thieves is going to keep their wares safe.

Really you herped so hard that you derped there.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 05:42:33 pm
Apologies Sams
I spoke too soon in anger.
If you can please disregard the both.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 05:46:41 pm
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 09, 2011, 05:59:48 pm
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?

Nevermind Spudit, I would break someone neck with a keyboard if they insinuated what Holt was saying about you.

To work it would require citizens to be isolated from each other, like farmers in the country side, or being defenceless by being disarmed. none of these conditions is satisfied on Ceres

Sure those Soldiers could achieve instantaneous numerical superiority and scare the pants out of people, but in such large urban setting has Ceres they would get spotted easily and could be routed once enough people get pissed off.

Such a subversion campaign over 50 years is almost impossible, the troops will get corrupted and will become if not ''believing anarchist'' at least most will become such for the money.

Have the UW buy some major Cerean industry, then ramp up ''security'' to protect it, stage an incident and make a violent takeover is the only way to conquer a county. In no time in History did an invasion occured in anyother way.

Even the Butcher Harris strip was based on this principle, heck now that I think about it Scott must have read some Hitler biography because the blackmail followed by attack is a Nazi classic
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 06:01:10 pm
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?

Wouldn't surprise me. Although really wouldn't you expect that to happen on Ceres? After all you run a security company and find business is down? Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 09, 2011, 06:04:26 pm
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?
That seems unlikely too.  I'd guess protection rackets only work on people who have no one to turn to, such as the cases sams mentioned, or when a minority group figures they can't get justice from prejudiced "authorities", or when organized crime buys off politicians, or (the usual case) when the perpetrator is the state.  None of them apply to Ceres.

All I can imagine is the obvious: deception followed by armed attack trying to install a ruler.  I figure that it's something else, but I don't see it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 06:07:12 pm
Nevermind Spudit, I would break someone neck with a keyboard if they insinuated what Holt was saying about you.

To work it would require citizens to be isolated from each other, like farmers in the country side, or being defenceless by being disarmed. none of these conditions is satisfied on Ceres

Sure those Soldiers could achieve instantaneous numerical superiority and scare the pants out of people, but in such large urban setting has Ceres they would get spotted easily and could be routed once enough people get pissed off.

Such a subversion campaign over 50 years is almost impossible, the troops will get corrupted and will become if not ''believing anarchist'' at least most will become such for the money.

Have the UW buy some major Cerean industry, then ramp up ''security'' to protect it, stage an incident and make a violent takeover is the only way to conquer a county. In no time in History did an invasion occured in anyother way.

Even the Butcher Harris strip was based on this principle, heck now that I think about it Scott must have read some Hitler biography because the blackmail followed by attack is a Nazi classic

Honestly I'm not sure it's worth bothering with you people anymore.

I try. I really do try. I keep raising my voice in dissent to the circular masturbation that occurs here but you refuse to listen. You don't comprehend that other viewpoints are just as valid as your own. You can't seem to grasp the idea that you may be wrong. You don't want to explore the possibility you may be wrong. You just refuse to think.

Really now this is why I hate dogma. This is why I hate ideology and debate.
You refuse to acknowledge dissent. You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities. You don't care about people. You care about your ideology. To you it has become more important than human life, than the future of our species and the well being of it's members.

Am I the only one who finds that rather sad?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 06:13:28 pm
To any and all concerned,

Are we done with the name calling?

I am.

What I want to hear is Ed's view of it all, you know, in the strip.

Note, A Texan took off his hat, must be some restaurant.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 09, 2011, 07:12:28 pm
You refuse to acknowledge dissent. You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities.
I figure that these guys are giving me a free entertaining comic strip, the least I can do is be polite.

Every now and then, though, I do note that some of the posters here do advance as convincing arguments in favor of AnCap that I find inadequate. So I can't say that I haven't noticed the problem you're complaining about here. But, on the other hand, since they haven't converted, they must find my arguments inadequate too.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 07:15:18 pm
You refuse to acknowledge dissent. You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities.
I figure that these guys are giving me a free entertaining comic strip, the least I can do is be polite.

Every now and then, though, I do note that some of the posters here do advance as convincing arguments in favor of AnCap that I find inadequate. So I can't say that I haven't noticed the problem you're complaining about here. But, on the other hand, since they haven't converted, they must find my arguments inadequate too.

I'm not even asking them to convert to another ideology. That doesn't solve the problem or even change it as the fundamental problem remains.
They're not questioning it. They're not questioning themselves. They're not asking the important question. They can not say why.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 09, 2011, 07:17:54 pm
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?

Wouldn't surprise me. Although really wouldn't you expect that to happen on Ceres? After all you run a security company and find business is down? Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security.

Hmm, really? Can you back up your bald assertion with an actual Cererean scenario that demonstrates how a security could "Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security." Bet you can't within in the context of ZAP, market anarchy. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 07:27:21 pm
hmm, really? Can you back up your bald assertion with an actual Cererean scenario that demonstrates how a security could "Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security." Bet you can't within in the context of ZAP, market anarchy. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

What the whole non-aggression principle?

That only works if everyone believes in it and adheres to it. In practicality not even anarchists follow it. In an AnCap society it would be downright impossible to stick to it. Someone steals from your shop what are you going to do? Tut disapprovingly? No you're going to fucking batter him. Or pay people to batter him more effectively.

The fact that everyone on Ceres is armed pretty much proves that they're all happy to be violent if they have to be.

All you have to do is pay a bunch of folk to raise some hell. Merchants get scared. Hire security. Security makes a show of it and "stops" the bad folk who oh gosh darn it manage to escape but hey we drove em off folks! thanks for your business.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 07:36:28 pm
The only arc where people were literally blindsided and needed protection was the spaceport mugging. But that problem was solved first by the private money reward and finally by the young volunteer it attracted. Barring truly strange situations, I can't.

Unprotected property though, closed shops could be damaged but the "protector" would have to pretty much admit he did it to get paid. Hard to see how to make it work.

Added
Sounds like someone here is confused about ZAP and fraud/theft. Look it up.
By that I mean property is as aggresivly protected as life. So the immediate result is it does not happen. So no large scale disturbance is likely.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 09, 2011, 07:41:15 pm
They're not questioning it. They're not questioning themselves. They're not asking the important question. They can not say why.
This is so obviously untrue that I suspect you of trolling.  But if you're not trolling, I'll be happy to explain why it is untrue if you'll do something for me first:

On forums like this, the one action I dislike above all others (much more than unwarranted personal insults, which say nothing about the insulted but a lot about the insulter) is deceptive quotation.  In reply #133 in this thread you pretended to quote me with words that I never said.  (I don't care if you meant it to be funny or not.)  If you edit that reply (either removing the quote or making it something that I actually said), and apologize, and make a good faith effort to do the same in all other places where you pretended to quote someone with something that they never said, then I'll finish this explanation.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 07:42:59 pm
The only arc where people were literally blindsided and needed protection was the spaceport mugging. But that problem was solved first by the private money reward and finally by the young volunteer it attracted. Barring truly strange situations, I can't.

Unprotected property though, closed shops could be damaged but the "protector" would have to pretty much admit he did it to get paid. Hard to see how to make it work.

Added
Sounds like someone here is confused about ZAP and fraud/theft. Look it up.
By that I mean property is as aggresivly protected as life. So the immediate result is it does not happen. So no large scale disturbance is likely.

More like you've never understood the basic reasons why we have police and law in the first place.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 09, 2011, 07:45:47 pm
Honestly I'm not sure it's worth bothering with you people anymore.

Promises, promises.  :P

I try. I really do try. I keep raising my voice in dissent to the circular masturbation that occurs here but you refuse to listen. You don't comprehend that other viewpoints are just as valid as your own.

No they are not. Some are some aren't. There is no universal equality of viewpoints. Some make sense and some suck. Your problem is that you offer your lame opinions without a scintilla of evidence or even logic and cannot comprehend why people reject your baseless opinions. Too bad, so sad.

You can't seem to grasp the idea that you may be wrong. You don't want to explore the possibility you may be wrong. You just refuse to think.

Pot = kettle. What you are demonstrating is a textbook example of "projection."

Really now this is why I hate dogma. This is why I hate ideology and debate.

Piffle. See, pot = kettle, above. I stand for ZAP and free markets. To the extent you even have an articulable "ideology," it is vacuous due to lack of evidentiary or rational support. 

You refuse to acknowledge dissent.

No, clearly we recognize that you are dissenting. What you refuse to acknowledge is that we find your dissent jejune and feeble.

You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities.

No, we acknowledge other possibilities, but we find your arguments fatuous.

You don't care about people.
You care about your ideology. To you it has become more important than human life, than the future of our species and the well being of it's members.

Wow! Where did that come from? Now I get it. You feel impotent and therefore expect the world support and protection you. Your whining is purely egotistical thumb sucking. Well, I for one, do care about people. However, I am not promiscuous with my caring. I will gladly make an exception in your case.  ::)

Am I the only one who finds that rather sad?

If it were true, we would all find it sad, fortunately it is not. What is sad though, is your pathetic attempts to play with the big boys and tear down your betters. Sorry, you lose.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 07:52:32 pm
I thought I heard something about police but I suspect no one was speaking after all

Most people go years without needing a cop, I know I do. But then most people don't need adult supervision.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 09, 2011, 08:25:38 pm
Holt, I think you are confusing a refusal to agree with a refusal to acknowledge.  You have a point of view. Astoundingly some people still disagree.  I know this is infuriating. 

We have all seen people become angry on message boards when their undeniably irresistible arguments are not instantly acknowledged as the equal of Cicero’s speeches.

The only thing you are owed on a message board is the ability to post not ultimate agreement.  And it makes no difference how good you are at arguing.

I heard a philosopher say that the hardest thing for him to do was lose and argument.  If a philosopher has a hard time then what about the rest of us? 

We should argue to learn not to win. 

In 15 years I have never seen anyone on the Internet change their mind due to the power of another person's argument.  It just never happens.

You are allowed to post and people can and do respond.  That’s pretty good since neither are innate human rights.

Now can we stop trying to win and talk about the comic strip?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 09, 2011, 08:36:27 pm
Well said.

Holt, I think you are confusing a refusal to agree with a refusal to acknowledge.  You have a point of view. Astoundingly some people still disagree.  I know this is infuriating. 

We have all seen people become angry on message boards when their undeniably irresistible arguments are not instantly acknowledged as the equal of Cicero’s speeches.

The only thing you are owed on a message board is the ability to post not ultimate agreement.  And it makes no difference how good you are at arguing.

I heard a philosopher say that the hardest thing for him to do was lose and argument.  If a philosopher has a hard time then what about the rest of us? 

We should argue to learn not to win. 

In 15 years I have never seen anyone on the Internet change their mind due to the power of another person's argument.  It just never happens.

You are allowed to post and people can and do respond.  That’s pretty good since neither are innate human rights.

Now can we stop trying to win and talk about the comic strip?

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 08:50:05 pm
Quote
Now can we stop trying to win and talk about the comic strip?

Amen Brudder.

Lets blow it wide open

Me, I think that transsexual lady has Morris chained to her bed. God knows what happens there and artists, I'd just as soon not see.

Kinky perhaps. But word hereabouts says I ain't quite right.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 09:13:55 pm
Holt, I think you are confusing a refusal to agree with a refusal to acknowledge.  You have a point of view. Astoundingly some people still disagree.  I know this is infuriating. 

That's just it. I don't have a point of view outside "There must be dissent". You people haven't figured it out yet.
I'm not some strawman "statist" for you to burn and dance around. If this was a board dedicated to democracy I'd be advocating constitutional monarchy, technocracy or national socialism maybe even some form of anarchy.
I hold no beliefs in this regard.

The only thing I care about is humanity. Our species. Our future.
Political ideology, philosophy, religion. These are all irrelevant except in one regard. How do they serve humanity?
If it turned out that the only way to ensure the future of our race was to adopt an extremely oppressive theocracy? Guess what? I'd support it all the way. If instead anarchistic capitalism was the way to ensure our species thrived? Behind it all the way.
I will support whatever helps us. Regardless of how monstrous it is or what it entails.

But we need dissent to find a way that benefits us. We as a species grow through conflict. Walling ourselves off and refusing to accept new ideas or questions only leads to stagnation which leads inevitably to death. You need to question things. You need to question yourselves, your beliefs, your very existence and state of being. You must question it all or else we are doomed.
That is the only thing I believe in.

I know it's not something most of you understand. People rarely do. They prefer to poke at the holes in the "enemy" rather than themselves. You'd rather laugh at statists assuming yourselves superior in every regard instead of saying "Ok this is how we'd like it to work. What could go wrong?"

I'm not asking you to "convert" to my way of thinking. I know that there are few who can. It's not exactly easy switching sides constantly to argue the underdog. All I am asking that you do is that you look at that ideology which you hold dear and look for those flaws. Because they are there whether you want them to be or not.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 09, 2011, 11:02:47 pm
Holt, It appears to me you enjoy playing the devils advocate.  I find that boring.  I would rather listen to a person assert an opinion they really believe, even if inexpertly, than craft some elegant argument about which they do not care.

Also don't mistake disagreement with lack of understanding.  I understand you just fine and I am rarely the smartest guy in the room.   

Start a new thread about humanity if you like.  I will join in.  But take it easy.

By the way, I don't want to come off like I have some sort of authrity to tell you what to do.  I speak for no one but myself and I am relatively new here.  If my history holds I will be banned soon anyway.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 10, 2011, 02:40:40 am
I thought I heard something about police but I suspect no one was speaking after all

Most people go years without needing a cop, I know I do. But then most people don't need adult supervision.

Well in most cases the police is involved in post crime actions, finding the criminal and bringing him to justice. Otherwise there are few cases in which you are lucky that there is a police officer nearby ... at least for my country and what I have seen in the UK.

The point is that people value security has much in an AnCap society has in any other, merchants willing to get a safe streets for their customers will make provision for their safety.

The tricky part is how to make post crime policing working in AnCap, you find the criminal lair, do you enter blazing guns to bring him to the arbitration ? What if he refuse arrest ? What if the result in more damage than the one you come asking for ?

@ Holt : The world is moved by ideas, EFT is trying to expose to AnCap Ideas and when enough AnCap minded people will emerge the world will never be the same. All your whining about people not adhering to it misses this point.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 10, 2011, 03:18:38 am
Public schooling varies. On some points it's better and others it's worse. On the plus point it brings schooling to the masses who otherwise would be unable to receive it.

FALSE!

I see that you have not followed up on the researchers who have already been frequently mentioned, namely

E G West
Andrew J Coulson
and James Tooley

Mass education arrived BEFORE government education. You may entertain any opinion you like, but you can't create your own facts.

You might as well read some John Holt while you are at it:
 
Instead of Education
Teach Your Own
Learning All the Time
A Life Worth Living

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 10, 2011, 07:23:41 am
Mass education arrived BEFORE government education. You may entertain any opinion you like, but you can't create your own facts.
Mass literacy arrived before the public school system.

Based on historical experience, I would expect that how we would get along without a public school system - except for those who could afford better - is this: large numbers of children would be sent to church-run schools, where they would learn to read, to write, to do basic arithmetic... and the teachings of the church involved. They would probably also learn some world history, though, and even a dollop of that is more than today's government schools are handing out.

Maybe I am unduly pessimistic. Those in charge of even such schools would likely have long enough memories to teach, in the higher grades, geometry. The old straightedge and compasses stuff, according to Euclid.

But I think that luxuries like algebra and chemistry classes are indeed delights that have been brought to the masses by government schools. Well, maybe not algebra. And I also have to admit one hardly needs schools to teach kids how to use computers; ducks don't need schools to teach them how to take to water.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 10, 2011, 07:30:56 am
But I think that luxuries like algebra and chemistry classes are indeed delights that have been brought to the masses by government schools. Well, maybe not algebra. And I also have to admit one hardly needs schools to teach kids how to use computers; ducks don't need schools to teach them how to take to water.

I think the most important difference would be that such private school system will have vast pool of practical knowledge teaching, for students who are interested in mostly learn to read, do math and wathever religious teachings their parents for them.

The other pool will be the ''vocational'' pool, with people willing to study for the sake of knowledge and willing to pay for it. This could be in the form of apprentiships, or scientific academies.

Sure Holt will cry canibalism because not everyone will benifit from the high culture of public education .... but seriously take 10 student randomly out of a public school and question them about culture and listen to the crap.

Either the program is crappy or the student just don't give a crap for ''beautiful knowledge'' about the renaissance or that moron George Washington ... it is not secret that only those who are interested seek profound knowledge the rest don't give a damn and no amount of tax dollars will ever change that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 10, 2011, 07:52:35 am

Honestly I'm not sure it's worth bothering with you people anymore.

I try. I really do try. I keep raising my voice in dissent to the circular masturbation that occurs here but you refuse to listen. You don't comprehend that other viewpoints are just as valid as your own. You can't seem to grasp the idea that you may be wrong. You don't want to explore the possibility you may be wrong. You just refuse to think.

They're thinking. They just prefer to think in certain patterns. You want them to think in ways that they don't like. Your ways *might* be just as good, but why would you expect them to accept that possibility?

Quote
Really now this is why I hate dogma. This is why I hate ideology and debate.
You refuse to acknowledge dissent. You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities. You don't care about people. You care about your ideology. To you it has become more important than human life, than the future of our species and the well being of it's members.

Am I the only one who finds that rather sad?

I'm sure lots of people do. Particularly when they run into somebody else's dogma. After years of getting upset about it, I finally noticed that there's an important place for that sort of thing. People try out ideas and see how the implications work out. This is potentially valuable. Sometimes it takes years or even generations to establish how valuable the ideas are. By having groups of people who irrationally assert that some particular sets of ideas are true and who act as if they were true, humanity gets the experience needed to find out whether those are ideas that human beings can live with.

This is a good thing in the long run, though it can have very bad results for the people who irrationally assert unproven ideas, or for some of the people who interact with them.

I used to think it would be much better if everybody kept an open mind about everything that was not scientifically proven. That was because I didn't really understand. The progress of humanity matters far more than any particular group of people. Groups of people are expendable, and they expend themselves trying things out. You can't stop them from doing it. And when it pays off, humanity benefits for as long as the lessons we learn from them persist.

So when you meet bullheaded opinionated people who firmly believe things with utterly inadequate evidence, and they refuse to accept that your contrary beliefs are in fact correct, take heart! You may not realize it -- they might not realize it themselves -- but they are sacrificing themselves for the long-term good of humanity.

Oh, here's a video you might like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u6Os0TDR6o
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 10, 2011, 08:53:14 am
Quote
You refuse to acknowledge dissent. You refuse to acknowledge other possibilities

Could you please show me how that's done?  Demonstrate for me "acknowledging other possibilities"?  At the moment, if all you did was get the other guy's argument straight, never mind agreeing or disagreeing with it, that would be an improvement.

Do you agree with Vyndreckism? 

You can't answer that question as asked -- it wants a yes-or-no response and you have zero understanding of Vyndreckism (for the simple reason that I only just now made up the term).  Until you understand something, agreement and disagreement are equally impossible.

I sincerely don't see that you understand the thing you claim to disagree with.  In fact it looks more as though you are strenuously resisting comprehension.  Still, maybe you could take a deep breath, chill a bit and say -- in non-loaded, unemotional language -- "Here's what I think you guys are saying", and check in and see if we recognize it.  We might say, 'Yep, sounds about right', or we might say, 'No, at least that's not what we're trying to say' -- which is important, because you might be disagreeing not with someone's intended thesis but only with his clumsy presentation.

Once you and we both agree on what our claim actually is, then disagreement will be meaningful. 

Till then, though, it's just shadow-boxing -- and you're the one providing the shadow.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 10, 2011, 09:12:57 am
Elaborating on Brugle's point.
Could it be a protection racket?

Wouldn't surprise me. Although really wouldn't you expect that to happen on Ceres? After all you run a security company and find business is down? Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security.

It's safer, more secure, if you will, if you simply change your business model, or expand your business services.  Offer a registration of valuables, for example, or include investigation as well as plain security, or whatever.  A number of different services could be offered in conjuntion with security.

After all, if people were to find out that you were deliberately causing problems in order to "drum up business", that's a sure-fire way to be drummed out of business.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 10, 2011, 09:31:03 am
hmm, really? Can you back up your bald assertion with an actual Cererean scenario that demonstrates how a security could "Drum some up by creating the illusion of a need for security." Bet you can't within in the context of ZAP, market anarchy. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

What the whole non-aggression principle?

That only works if everyone believes in it and adheres to it. In practicality not even anarchists follow it. In an AnCap society it would be downright impossible to stick to it. Someone steals from your shop what are you going to do? Tut disapprovingly? No you're going to fracking batter him. Or pay people to batter him more effectively.

The fact that everyone on Ceres is armed pretty much proves that they're all happy to be violent if they have to be.

Ah, I see--you misunderstand the non-aggression principle. 

It's like this:  basically it is wrong to initiate force (or fraud) against other people.   However, it is not wrong to use force for defensive purposes.  If you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself.  And I beiieve a further implication is that you only have the right to use enough force to stop the initiator, and no more; otherwise you yourself become an initiator. 

So if someone is robbing you, you have the right to use enough force to stop the robber, but killing him would be unjustified unless he threatened or made an attempt at killing you.

More often, of course, a theft occurs when there is no one around to notice it and try to stop it.  So you get home and find out your TV is gone.  Retaliatory force is also justified under the non-aggression principle.  If you don't know who stole your property, then obviously an investigation is necessary to find that out.  Once you do know who stole your property, you essentially have the right to get it back or to get restitution, compensation for the loss. 

However, to avoid confusion and misunderstandings, or escalation of aggression, a public process to identify the criminal and claim restitution is usually desirable.  In other words, a trial.  That way, other people in the community also know who the criminal is, and won't object to retaliatory force being used to recover the property or claim restituion from the criminal.

So, in short, it is considered wrong to initiate force, but not wrong to use defensive force or properly-justified retaliatory force.   That is the essence of the non-aggression principle.  Pacifists may be considered libertarians, but libertarianism doesn't require you to be a pacifist, only morally justified in the force that you do use.   It's not just "violence" because force or fraud don't always involve the use of violence.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 09:58:19 am
Cops and robbers in an AnCap world, may I refer you to The Probability Broach?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 10:09:04 am
I believe all the humans here would like to see the Human Race survive.

Questions though, survive as a species, as a culture, as some particular and knowing this fine bunch of folks, peculular, lifestyle?

If someone here felt a need to explore it, and since someone here has stated a passion for our survival, that person should.

Note to that person, it can be hard to tell the Devil from His advocate.

This pot does not need stirring.

Easy does it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 10, 2011, 10:12:41 am
Holt, I think you are confusing a refusal to agree with a refusal to acknowledge.  You have a point of view. Astoundingly some people still disagree.  I know this is infuriating. 

The only thing I care about is humanity. Our species. Our future.
Political ideology, philosophy, religion. These are all irrelevant except in one regard. How do they serve humanity?
If it turned out that the only way to ensure the future of our race was to adopt an extremely oppressive theocracy? Guess what? I'd support it all the way. If instead anarchistic capitalism was the way to ensure our species thrived? Behind it all the way.
I will support whatever helps us. Regardless of how monstrous it is or what it entails.

But we need dissent to find a way that benefits us.

I'm not asking you to "convert" to my way of thinking. I know that there are few who can. It's not exactly easy switching sides constantly to argue the underdog. All I am asking that you do is that you look at that ideology which you hold dear and look for those flaws. Because they are there whether you want them to be or not.

Bravo.  Look, I consider myself open to new ideas--it's because I was open to new ideas that I discovered libertarianism, a political philosophy that made so much more sense than anything else I had encountered.

And since I've discovered it, I've spent a whole heck of a lot of time thinking about it, what it means, and how it applies.  I've considered arguments from people who were both sympathetic and unsympathetic to libertarianism that attack its weaknesses.   I discovered libertarianism in my early 20's, and I'm 45 now.  So I've been thinking about this for over twenty years, thankyouverymuch.

But it's time that you employed a little empathy.  On this board, sure, most of us are Ancaps, or at least heavily libertarian.  But out in the mainstream world, we make a pretty small group overall.  It takes more effort to get many people to even listen to our arguments, much less give them a fair consideration against their own beliefs and ideology.   

And why do we do it?  Why make the attempt?  It's not just some mental masturbation--it's not merely a fun, logical puzzle to entertain myself in my spare time.  It's because I believe that libertarian ideas would indeed improve our society and make the world a better place for everybody to live in.  Frankly, I'm not quite so worried about the end or destruction of the human race as you seem to be.  Regardless of beliefs, I think humanity will find some way to survive for quite some time--well after I'm gone.  But I'd like for us to do more than merely survive--I want humanity to thrive, prosper, progress, and create new advances and marvels that are even today still undreamed of.   And i think libertarianism is the most effective political means for allowing that to happen.

So, I'll believe you have good intentions if you believe that I have good intentions.  Heck, I'll believe in your good intentions even if you don't believe in mine.  It's easy to get into certain habits of belief, no matter what set of beliefs are involved, but I don't think I'm being dogmatic and close-minded.  I have, however, encountered many of the same arguments over and over again, arguments that have already been addressed multiple times, even if you are new to the counterarguments. 

So cheer up!  I've had plenty of time to get past the frustration with argument and debate--now it's your turn.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 10, 2011, 10:29:21 am
But it's time that you employed a little empathy.  On this board, sure, most of us are Ancaps, or .  Heck, I'll believe in your good intentions even if you don't believe in mine.  It's easy to get into certain habits of belief, no matter what set of beliefs are involved, but I don't think I'm being dogmatic and close-minded.  I have, however, encountered many of the same arguments over and over again, arguments that have already been addressed multiple times, even if you are new to the counterarguments. 

So cheer up!  I've had plenty of time to get past the frustration with argument and debate--now it's your turn.


Hahahahahaha!


Bravo! well said.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 10, 2011, 10:38:05 am

But I think that luxuries like algebra and chemistry classes are indeed delights that have been brought to the masses by government schools. Well, maybe not algebra. And I also have to admit one hardly needs schools to teach kids how to use computers; ducks don't need schools to teach them how to take to water.



  I like your analagy, and this is the new thing, computers are easy to use for educational purposes and a lot of self education is going on Google is better to have than a Liabrary of Congress card.

If kids start useing computers to their full potential as teaching machines they will be going to school already knowing everything their grade level was planning to teach that year.

As soon as someone makes it possible to earn cool armor in WOW by compleating algebra puzzles the public at large will be blessed with good math as common knoledge.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Bob G on February 11, 2011, 12:35:58 am
And little else. Businessmen wanted malleable, marginally trainable cogs for their industrial machine, and used their influence on government to ensure a future supply of same. BEFORE public education as we know it today came into being, Frederic Bastiat remarked on how literate and politically involved American CITIZENS were. How on Earth is that possible?

So now you hate the capitalists? Be consistent for a few minutes would you kindly?

How, inconsistent? I have no problem with capitalists who are willing to take risks in a free market. I *do* despise crony mercantilists who use the power of the state to tilt the playing field to their advantage. The two are not the same, and that you can't seem to make the distinction is YOUR problem.

Quote
Also prior to a national formal system of education in the USA most children would have been going to schools run by the local church. They learnt to read so they could be appropriately scared of god.

They learned to read so that they could read. The churches may have *taught* them to read so they could read the Bible and learn to know God, but that's different.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 07:20:32 am
Look, I consider myself open to new ideas--it's because I was open to new ideas that I discovered libertarianism, a political philosophy that made so much more sense than anything else I had encountered.
I'll tell you where I stand compared to the poster to whom you were replying.

The biological survival of the human species - until we discover other intelligent life - does rank, for me as the supreme value. (Above it would be the survival of intelligent life itself in general.)

However, very close to that value is that of freedom. Only survival with freedom is truly meaningful. Survival without freedom is only preferable to annihilation because it holds a greater possibility of recovery to a state of survival with freedom.

Libertarianism or the ZAP seems to me like a sensible starting point for morality. But because I strongly value survival with freedom, I'm not prepared to just say, obey the rules that freedom implies, and let the chips fall where they may.

Many people here believe that the experience of United States and world history shows that governments inevitably become despotisms. I'm not sure that I could disprove that belief. I am content to note that history also shows that this process can... take a while. And that the possibility may be being overlooked here that under many sets of circumstances, anarchy - of the civilized AnCap kind, not mere chaos as in Somalia which is already the tyranny of the strongest thug - is at risk of descending to despotism more quickly.

Glass is, technically, a liquid. Yet we don't worry about our windows flowing out of their sills.

Governments with the power to tax and conscript can be, I claim, an effective and useful way for free men to band together to survive in a dangerous world. They have their dangers, and the people who organized the United States' system of government were very well aware of both the dangers and the benefits of government. I therefore see the main danger to the continued freedom of Americans not in the fact that the United States has a government, but in the fact that its citizens seem to be losing their understanding of the principles on which it was founded.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 12, 2011, 05:49:41 pm
Mass education arrived BEFORE government education. You may entertain any opinion you like, but you can't create your own facts.

Mass literacy arrived before the public school system.

Based on historical experience, I would expect that how we would get along without a public school system - except for those who could afford better - is this: large numbers of children would be sent to church-run schools, where they would learn to read, to write, to do basic arithmetic... and the teachings of the church involved.

Why do you expect this? Historically, non-government education was not always church-oriented education. In America today, there are many non-church efforts to improve education. Kumon Math, Huntington Learning, ... you can easily extend the list.

Several researchers - a category of people who work harder from the "I generate my own opinions from any collection of hot air which is handy" crowd - found that parents often prefer (and pay for) non-religious schools in many times and places.

Once again: instead of creating opinions out of hot air, read James Tooley's research about free-market education in India and Africa, in places where many people have little income, and yet still choose to pay for free-market schools - even when "free" government and church schools are available.

One of your biggest problems, Quadibloc, is that you still believe the government-issue myth that schooling must be time-consuming and expensive. There must be a reason why children are forced to spend 180 days times 6 hours times 12 years in school, right? Wrong - whatever that reason might be, it has nothing to do with teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and other academic studies, since those can be more properly addressed in a much shorter period of time.

In times past, schools - including the few government schools which then existed - required that students already know how to read before beginning school. Nowadays, the No Child Left Behind Act has a goal that "every 4th grader will know how to read."

This is not progress.
 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 14, 2011, 12:27:41 pm

Many people here believe that the experience of United States and world history shows that governments inevitably become despotisms. I'm not sure that I could disprove that belief. I am content to note that history also shows that this process can... take a while. And that the possibility may be being overlooked here that under many sets of circumstances, anarchy - of the civilized AnCap kind, not mere chaos as in Somalia which is already the tyranny of the strongest thug - is at risk of descending to despotism more quickly.
I'll grant you that it may take time, especially if the government is set up with some kind of mechanism, as the U.S. has with its separation of powers, to block the accumulation of power by a particular individual or group.  Nonetheless, we must look at the fundamentals.  A government, any government, is essentially an organization that has a legal right to initiate force, if only to sustain itself, and usually for much more than that.   It is therefore a criminal organization granted some form of legitimacy, regardless of its immoral actions.

Now you think it possible that an anarchistic society would descend to despotism more quickly, but what is the nature of an AnCap society?  No organization is granted a legal right to initiate force, no large-scale power structure is created for said initiations of force.  Thus, there are two very strong factors against despotism.  Any person or group who wishes to become a tyrant in anarchy must not only create, from scratch, the necessary power structure to enforce their will, but must also create some form of legitimacy in the public's mind for exercising this power. 

In other words, in anarchy, the tipping point is going the other way.  I won't say it's impossible for anarchy to 'descend into despotism", but, once that tipping point is going the other way, I'd bet it'd take more time, not less, for it to occur.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 14, 2011, 02:24:33 pm
Now you think it possible that an anarchistic society would descend to despotism more quickly, but what is the nature of an AnCap society?  No organization is granted a legal right to initiate force, no large-scale power structure is created for said initiations of force.  Thus, there are two very strong factors against despotism.  Any person or group who wishes to become a tyrant in anarchy must not only create, from scratch, the necessary power structure to enforce their will, but must also create some form of legitimacy in the public's mind for exercising this power.
I wasn't worrying about the legitimacy.

Instead, I saw the lack of a large-scale structure as the critical weakness - that would mean no large-scale power structure to resist whatever would impose, from within or without, tyranny on an AnCap society.

I suppose that it helps both that I read the Vietnam War as the successful imposition of tyranny on the Vietnamese people which the U.S. failed to prevent - and not as a genuine resistance to a U.S. attempt to impose tyranny and that I feel that being called upon to wage a guerilla war against invaders is just the sort of unpleasantness that I'm hoping the political system in my community will be able to prevent.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 14, 2011, 03:37:07 pm
... I saw the lack of a large-scale structure as the critical weakness - that would mean no large-scale power structure to resist whatever would impose, from within or without, tyranny on an AnCap society.

I am curious as to why you believe that market anarchy would not be able to have large-scale structures. I see nothing in market anarchy that precludes large-scale structures. Assuming for a moment that such structures could exist, how would that affect your opinion about market anarchy?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 14, 2011, 03:41:57 pm
I read the Vietnam War as the successful imposition of tyranny on the Vietnamese people which the U.S. failed to prevent
I think that most people here would agree with that.  And I think most would agree that the US government didn't even try to prevent tyranny being imposed on the Vietnamese people, it merely tried to put a different tyranny into power.  Furthermore, the methods used, including mass murder of innocent people (who wanted no part in the quarrel between those tyrannical groups), did not help the group that the US government favored.

And even if you think that one of the tyrannies would end up not quite as bad as the other, that's no justification for imposing tyranny on the American people.  Help one of the contending tyrannical groups if you want to, but don't advocate theft from (or even worse, enslavement of) people to carry out your crazy policies.

I feel that being called upon to wage a guerilla war against invaders is just the sort of unpleasantness that I'm hoping the political system in my community will be able to prevent.
Then don't wage guerrilla war.  Flee the fighting.  There will be enough good people defending against the invasion.  Come back when the fighting is over.  The damage done to your property by the invasion will probably be far less than the damage that would have been done over the years by the "political system" you favor.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 03:52:10 pm
Speaking of guerrilla war, I hear there is a remake of Red Dawn due out this summer, soon anyway. Why it was made is another question.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on February 14, 2011, 06:57:46 pm
I feel that being called upon to wage a guerilla war against invaders is just the sort of unpleasantness that I'm hoping the political system in my community will be able to prevent.

Then don't wage guerrilla war.  Flee the fighting.  There will be enough good people defending against the invasion.  Come back when the fighting is over.  The damage done to your property by the invasion will probably be far less than the damage that would have been done over the years by the "political system" you favor.

Another way to look at this is that war is always a minus sum game, as is established tyranny.  Quadibloc is comfortable accepting what he considers "the lesser of two evils"; neither you or I are -- assuming, of course that there is a feasible, better, alternative. 

The alternative being proposed is the the threat of a credible guerrilla war against potential tyrants (both external and internal) being mounted.  Presenting and maintaining threat is far less costly than either engaging in war against a potential tyrant or suffering under an existing one.  There is the downside, of course, that at some point individuals might need to actually engage in war (and guerrilla war is generally less costly than overt war, although it can only be waged effectively if one has "home field advantage").  This, however, would not be a steady state activity -- which an established tyranny is.

This "threat of war" model was recognized by the founders of the US government, and formed the fundamental reason for incorporating the second amendment  in its constitution.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 14, 2011, 09:30:08 pm
Quote from: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled link=topic=527.msg11092#msg11092

The alternative being proposed is the the threat of a credible guerrilla war against potential tyrants (both external and internal) being mounted.  Presenting and maintaining threat is far less costly than either engaging in war against a potential tyrant or suffering under an existing one.  There is the downside, of course, that at some point individuals might need to actually engage in war (and guerrilla war is generally less costly than overt war, although it can only be waged effectively if one has "home field advantage").  This, however, would not be a steady state activity -- which an established tyranny is.

Guerrilla war sometimes costs more than overt war. It depends.

If you have stuff you want to defend, your enemy can take it or smash it. You can't stop them from doing that with guerrilla war, you can only raid them and make them pay something for doing it.

If they do collective punishment of your civilians, you can't stop them with guerrilla war. You can only make them pay.

Etc.

Depending on terrain etc, guerrillas may take more casualties than conventional forces that chase them. And it's often easy for conventional forces to claim that guerrillas take more casualties, by padding the numbers with innocent civilians. Do the guerrillas have a responsibility to protect those civilians? They can't.

There's a rule of thumb that societies under occupation tend to fold and fully submit after about 10% of them are dead. That doesn't always work. It worked pretty well for the USA in the Philippines. It did not work for the French in Algeria. It did not work for the Russians in Chechnya. If you want to fight a guerrilla war against an enemy who is willing to try that out, you could lose 10% of your people and then have the choice whether to keep fighting. That looks expensive to me.

But whatever the expense to you, the bad guys will lay off if you can make it more expensive than they're willing to pay. You can lose 5 for 1 or 10 for 1 for years and still win if they aren't willing to lose that 1. You can win even if it costs far more than you would prefer.

On the other hand if they're willing and able to exterminate your people then you have the choices of giving in, getting killed off, or maybe they'll let you run away to live somewhere else.

There's no sure-fire solution. But the threat of guerrilla war can often stop aggression. And actual guerrilla war can stop them sometimes -- sometimes cheaply, sometimes at great cost, sometimes not at all. It has the advantage that it's much cheaper than a standing army in peacetime. And it doesn't give you a standing army that might choose to take over the government. (Or create one.) It doesn't give you the illusion that you can cheaply send your army into a neighboring country and make them do things your way.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 15, 2011, 09:16:57 am
I wasn't worrying about the legitimacy.

Instead, I saw the lack of a large-scale structure as the critical weakness - that would mean no large-scale power structure to resist whatever would impose, from within or without, tyranny on an AnCap society.

Without legitimacy, an organization that attempted to conquer and control some area by force would always be perceived as criminal and evil, a force to be resisted and fought against, even if they succeeded.  Without legitimacy, it would be much more costly to conquer and maintain control. 

And, as Sandy suggested, large-scale structures could exist in anarchy.  I specifically said that no such structure would be created and granted legitimacy for the specific purpose of initiating force.

So, you might think that some large-scale structure could simply be taken over by those with criminal intent and converted for that purpose.  But if you have a large company like Wal-Mart or General Mills whose primary income comes from customers, and they start to engage in large-scale, criminal acts, their legitimacy as a business takes a nosedive, and they start losing large numbers of customers.  They have to be able to sufficiently replace their legitimate income with illegitimate income, or they go out of business rather dramatically. Again, without legitimacy, they become a force to be resisted and fought against.

I said company, not corporation, because in anarchy there would be no government to grant corporate status or privileges to companies.  I think it is possible without government to organize a business in a corporate structure--one group of people "own" the company while another group of people actually run the company, but they would still not have the privilege against liability or the legal status of a "fictitious person" as corporations do today.




Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2011, 09:21:39 am
The Irish managed to deter the Brits for about a thousand years, with unorganized warfare and nothing that we would recognize as central government.

I have no worries about an AnCap society holding off agressive nations.

Stir into your thinking the fact that today's warfare-welfare government diverts about half of all research scientists to warfare-welfare-related research. The warfare-welfare government diverts about half of capital spending - perhaps more, if we also count "education" funding.

If you are willing to cede the "economic calculation problem" faced by governments; if you have even a nodding acquaintance with how much military spending is driven by political considerations rather than military considerations, then you must ask whether, after a certain tipping point, coercive central organization results in less useful military capability, not greater.  How is it that a military force which costs as much as all other countries combined, which has the explosive equivalent of 6 tons of TNT for every man, woman and child on the planet, still feels threatened on every side, and cannot win against itty bitty countries like Afghanistan and Iraq without pulverizing them?

Would not our society be vastly richer if people voluntarily chose where to invest, what to research, and what to produce? Would we not be more efficiently-armed?

Even socialists and communists recognize that collectivization of farming has led to huge and costly failures. Many are starting to get the point that collectivization of education is an equally costly failure.

When do we admit that collectivization of defense is also a huge and costly failure?
 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 11:54:28 am
I wasn't worrying about the legitimacy.

Instead, I saw the lack of a large-scale structure as the critical weakness - that would mean no large-scale power structure to resist whatever would impose, from within or without, tyranny on an AnCap society.

Without legitimacy, an organization that attempted to conquer and control some area by force would always be perceived as criminal and evil, a force to be resisted and fought against, even if they succeeded.  Without legitimacy, it would be much more costly to conquer and maintain control.

That makes sense. But if there were no large-scale structures, is it possible that a whole lot of people would disapprove but would Mind Their Own Business? They might think long-term and figure that tyranny is likely to spread to them. But today  it seems like most people pay attention mostly to their day-to-day lives without making much effort to plan long-term. I make some effort at long-term planning but I don't follow up that wall. After all, I live in the USA and I haven't yet gone to the trouble of getting a passport for my wife and kids.

Quote
And, as Sandy suggested, large-scale structures could exist in anarchy.  I specifically said that no such structure would be created and granted legitimacy for the specific purpose of initiating force.

So, for example, there could be some sort of moribund large-scale organization intended to fight off invaders. And when invaders come then it might quickly get more vigorous.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 15, 2011, 12:18:33 pm
... I think it is possible without government to organize a business in a corporate structure--one group of people "own" the company while another group of people actually run the company...

One possibility is a joint stock company. That has become conflated with corporation, but historically they were formed without "benefit" of government.

Another way that still is used (I used one to form a film production company) is the Massachusetts business trust.

... but they would still not have the privilege against liability or the legal status of a "fictitious person" as corporations do today.

Well, yes and no. I think anyone or any entity can limit their liability in a market anarchy. How? By conspicuously and consistently appending "Limited" or similar wording after their names and in all contracts and other relevant documents. That is why corporations are required by law to use limiting language in their names and dealings. It is, in effect, a warning to anyone choosing to do business with the person or entity, that liability is limited. Now that may take some arbitration precedents to settle on the generally accepted meaning of each type of wording in different situations, but I see no reason, consistent with market anarchist or ZAP principles that preclude it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2011, 12:39:58 pm
Is there a large-scale structure in Afghanistan? I think some of you state-apologists should have a look at some books by H. John Poole, including Tactics of the Crescent Moon. The large-scale structure is deliberately amorphous, changing, not fixed.

To take another example: the decades-old War on Drugs. Who is winning? Not the side with the large-scale structure, that's for sure. The merchants create as much structure as they need. Whenever the structure becomes a handicap, it breaks apart and recombines into a stronger form.

Tactics are tried, adapted, improved. What works is used again; that fails is discarded.

How would this apply in a society such as Ceres where the AnCap devotees have the technological high ground?





Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 15, 2011, 02:17:36 pm
Well, yes and no. I think anyone or any entity can limit their liability in a market anarchy. How? By conspicuously and consistently appending "Limited" or similar wording after their names and in all contracts and other relevant documents.
So, unlike the case in the South Sea bubble, investors in a company can't be sued if the company goes under with unpaid contractual debts.

But if the company owes money to people who haven't signed a contract with it... say they didn't store some inflammables properly, that sort of thing... liability would not be limited. Which may not be a bad thing, as it would make companies more careful, and it would be consistent with there being no government to initiate force and subject people to risks against their will.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 15, 2011, 04:16:02 pm
So, unlike the case in the South Sea bubble, investors in a company can't be sued if the company goes under with unpaid contractual debts.

Depends. If the company's claims of limited liability are sufficient to convince an arbitrator. You can sue the Bishop of Boston for Bastardry. That would be just as true in a market anarchy. If you don't call limited liability or you do it insufficiently well, you will end up in the dock.

But if the company owes money to people who haven't signed a contract with it... say they didn't store some inflammables properly, that sort of thing... liability would not be limited. Which may not be a bad thing, as it would make companies more careful, and it would be consistent with there being no government to initiate force and subject people to risks against their will.

I have my doubts it would work out that way. Some person, or persons, is responsible. I don't see how that would transfer to someone who was not responsible. Even then there are judgment calls that would have to be made. One consideration that would not apply, is the concept of "deep pockets." That is the highly unethical view that it's okay to stick someone with paying for another persons injury, irrespective of culpability, if he has big bucks and the victim neeeeds it. Ancaps don't eat the rich, them emulate them.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2011, 04:29:37 pm
There is another vehicle which is between the "limited liability" and "unlimited liability."

In some countries, it was (and still may be) the custom for one or a few general partners to assume liability for the actions of the firm, and a large number to assume a limited liability; the latter group invest X amount, and might lose that amount, but would not be liable beyond that point if, for example, a fire consumed not only a factory but its neighbors also. The general partners would be liable for those damages.

Such firms are able to attract large amounts of capital from "limited" partners, and the "general" partners tend to keep a tight rein on risks.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 15, 2011, 04:42:59 pm
Even if a firm has limited liability, people can negotiate around it.  One of the conditions a bank insisted upon for a loan to a small company I worked for (I was employee #45) was that the officers would be personally responsible for the loan if the corporation failed.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 06:53:44 pm

But if the company owes money to people who haven't signed a contract with it... say they didn't store some inflammables properly, that sort of thing... liability would not be limited. Which may not be a bad thing, as it would make companies more careful, and it would be consistent with there being no government to initiate force and subject people to risks against their will.

I have my doubts it would work out that way. Some person, or persons, is responsible. I don't see how that would transfer to someone who was not responsible. Even then there are judgment calls that would have to be made.

Definitely. Like, don't rich drug dealers hire people to be legally responsible, to go to jail if caught? Doesn't the concept generalize?

Is it possible to say "Make me X amount of money, and if you have to do something illegal to do it, don't tell me about it or don't admit that you did tell me."? So you can tell the arbitrator "I didn't know he was doing that. I would have told him not to if I had known. He cheated me too.".

So you find somebody with very shallow pockets to protect your deep pockets, and it's part of the job that in the event of disaster he winds up with debts he can never repay. Can you find somebody like that? Will he keep his word, or will he confess and accept some penalty that's probably almost as bad? He's responsible for what he did, which could carry pretty hefty penalties. You're responsible for setting it up so he could do that and telling him to do it and so on.

Or you could really be innocent, you didn't know what your manager was doing. It wasn't your responsibility to track what he was doing when it was your money. You should be allowed to keep the profits he got you and get no penalty, right? Hire a replacement and keep on earning, and don't watch the new guy either?

It takes a judgement call.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 15, 2011, 10:43:27 pm
Some person, or persons, is responsible. I don't see how that would transfer to someone who was not responsible.
That's an important point. As you say, an AnCap isn't about eating the rich, it's about emulating them.

But part of what might limit the scale of corporate enterprises in an AnCap system is that responsibility would be harder to evade. When a company under our present system cuts corners and people are hurt, was this due to low-level manager X, higher-level manager Y who covered his tracks, or due to a whole corporate culture where everyone was under pressure to achieve unrealistic goals?

Since it's often hard to tell - because the police aren't standing over the workplace - the law here holds the company responsible, at least in a civil sense, but not a criminal sense, when things go wrong.

If A injures B, then repairing the injury to B, in full, isn't a case of needs creating rights.

Those who owned part of the company and profited by its past productivity, may not have been entirely free of culpability; this is why some people have organized "ethical investment" funds - it's possible to know whether you're investing in a company that's doing things many people might not like. (Whether rationally or out of misguided squeamishness, of course, but that's another question.)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 11:47:31 am
Ok children. You keep claiming that due to the magic of the free market. That by the will of the great chain of industry. All bad companies will cease to function.

Explain McDonalds. Explain how a company that makes some of the shittiest food in the world and is well known for this, still manages to be an economic juggernaut. Explain how this is capable in any remotely free market.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 11:57:33 am
Quote
Ok children. You keep claiming that due to the magic of the free market. That by the will of the great chain of industry. All bad companies will cease to function.

Explain McDonalds. Explain how a company that makes some of the shittiest food in the world and is well known for this, still manages to be an economic juggernaut. Explain how this is capable in any remotely free market.

Oh, this is funny!  You mean to say, McDonalds, makers of some of the world's shittiest food, could not grow great in a free market?  Dude, I guess you are so right -- it takes government intervention to create such a monster. 

Awesome.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 12:03:33 pm
Quote
Ok children. You keep claiming that due to the magic of the free market. That by the will of the great chain of industry. All bad companies will cease to function.

Explain McDonalds. Explain how a company that makes some of the shittiest food in the world and is well known for this, still manages to be an economic juggernaut. Explain how this is capable in any remotely free market.

Oh, this is funny!  You mean to say, McDonalds, makers of some of the world's shittiest food, could not grow great in a free market?  Dude, I guess you are so right -- it takes government intervention to create such a monster. 

Awesome.

I just want to know how the fuck a free market would stop McDonalds. It seems to fly in the face of everything these AnCap guys believe in. It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 17, 2011, 12:06:42 pm
I just want to know how the frack a free market would stop McDonalds. It seems to fly in the face of everything these AnCap guys believe in. It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.

Because McDonald works in a free market ? I tough those Beefs were from subsidized US cows .... my bad to break in reality  :-X

So what is the problem if people like shitty unhealthy McDonald food ? Secondly If you set foot in the UK you will see at least in some neighbourhood a lot of food related shops ... so Where is the fracking disaster ?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 12:13:05 pm
I just want to know how the frack a free market would stop McDonalds. It seems to fly  in the face of everything these AnCap guys believe in. It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.

Because McDonald works in a free market ? I tough those Beefs were from subsidized US cows .... my bad to break in reality  :-X

So what is the problem if people like shitty unhealthy McDonald food ? Secondly If you set foot in the UK you will see at least in some neighbourhood a lot of food related shops ... so Where is the fracking disaster ?

Here's a protip for you son. There is a reason American beef has had so many import restrictions put on it over the years.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 17, 2011, 12:18:50 pm
Here's a protip for you son. There is a reason American beef has had so many import restrictions put on it over the years.

It is related to commercial dumping dude ... ie US government subsidizing beef producing, which then under sales others on the globe ... It is a fraking free markkket acording to HOLT  ::)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 12:52:10 pm
Here's a protip for you son. There is a reason American beef has had so many import restrictions put on it over the years.

It is related to commercial dumping dude ... ie US government subsidizing beef producing, which then under sales others on the globe ... It is a fraking free markkket acording to HOLT  ::)

Actually it's because of the health concerns regarding American Beef. American Beef cows are pumped full of steroids and antibiotics while being fed a primarily grain based diet to get them up to market weight faster which is also why they need the antibiotics as it puts a big strain on their digestive system. These create legitimate health concerns regarding the safety of American beef. EU banned it entirely and enacted laws to ensure that the beef produced by EU member states was of a sufficient quality that there would be no health concerns. US farmers threw a hissy fit because if they can't pump their cattle full of drugs then they can't turn a profit. Hence why the USA leaned on a few nations outside the EU to get them to resume US beef imports despite it being banned out of concern for public health (For example: Japan and South Korea).

In an AnCap society those farmers would have no doubt banded together to flex their monetary muscle to similar effect. No doubt engaging on a campaign of misinformation in a manner similar to the one the tobacco industry has waged for who knows how long now.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 01:52:37 pm
Quote
It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.

And the environment in which it is thriving is a free market?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 17, 2011, 02:04:10 pm
In an AnCap society those farmers would have no doubt banded together to flex their monetary muscle to similar effect. No doubt engaging on a campaign of misinformation in a manner similar to the one the tobacco industry has waged for who knows how long now.

Because they are not colluding with the US government to get subsidies ... like their European counterpart

Right  ::)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 02:11:34 pm
In an AnCap society those farmers would have no doubt banded together to flex their monetary muscle to similar effect. No doubt engaging on a campaign of misinformation in a manner similar to the one the tobacco industry has waged for who knows how long now.

Because they are not colluding with the US government to get subsidies ... like their European counterpart

Right  ::)

Whatever bro. I'll be here enjoying my non-drug and hormone laced meat.

Quote
It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.

And the environment in which it is thriving is a free market?

But your basic claim is that the hand of the free market is unstoppable and all knowing. That the consumer will always vote with their wallets when given the choice. Yet they are consistently not doing so. Is there perhaps some law requiring us all to go to McDonalds? Perhaps people with clubs come round and force us to go there? No? Well snap yo then surely they should have perished. Oh mighty all knowing hand of the free market you do work in mysterious ways.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 04:24:35 pm
Quote
It offers bad product at a high price in tacky surroundings yet it not only survives, it thrives and stomps out the competition.

And the environment in which it is thriving is a free market?

But your basic claim is that the hand of the free market is unstoppable and all knowing. That the consumer will always vote with their wallets when given the choice. Yet they are consistently not doing so. Is there perhaps some law requiring us all to go to McDonalds? Perhaps people with clubs come round and force us to go there? No? Well snap yo then surely they should have perished. Oh mighty all knowing hand of the free market you do work in mysterious ways.

Surely you see the pattern here. Anything bad comes from government. A real free market would not have anything bad, or if something bad happened it would be quickly self-limiting and self-exterminating. Anything bad in reality comes from governments, which are always present and therefore always present to be blamed for anything bad that happens. After the Second Coming AnCap society starts, all the bad things will go away. And if they don't then it isn't really an AnCap society.

What do you get from arguing with this? Wouldn't it be more fun to argue about something that's more productive, like 9/11?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 17, 2011, 04:55:53 pm
Surely you see the pattern here. Anything bad comes from government. A real free market would not have anything bad, or if something bad happened it would be quickly self-limiting and self-exterminating. Anything bad in reality comes from governments, which are always present and therefore always present to be blamed for anything bad that happens. After the Second Coming AnCap society starts, all the bad things will go away.
Sometimes it seems like this to me too. But that isn't really fair, because it isn't as bad as that.

Instead, their position seems to me to be more like this:

Freedom comes first.

Things like responding to crime, providing poor relief, preventing child abuse... yes, they claim that it is not the case that not having a government makes them impossible. That, with a little ingenuity, an AnCap system can cope with all these things just fine.

But the reason they seem to address points like these dismissively is not because they think AnCap is a magic wand.

No. It's because they're coming at it from a different perspective. They believe strongly that in the United States, as it is presently constituted, its democracy is a sham, and the freedom that Americans think they still have is an illusion. The velvet glove on the iron fist has not yet worn thin, but that is coming soon.

The only way to have a system that doesn't turn into a dictatorship is... AnCap. And compared to freedom, everything else is minor. Giving away one's freedom in order that the storm sewers shall be cleaned more efficiently and potholes shall be filled more promptly... is selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage.

So you are not dealing with people whose thought processes are irrational from top to bottom, who think the world works by magic, and AnCap is that magic. No; the difference between them and other people is, rather, a single point of difference about a single specific fact - which has led them to different priorities than others.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: wdg3rd on February 17, 2011, 05:31:03 pm
I've been know to eat at McDonalds and enjoy it.  Likewise Burger King, Taco Bell, Wendy's, Jack-in-the-Box, White Castle and a host of other fast food chains.  None of them ever held a gun to my head and forced me to eat there or die.  No longer being in Southern California, I don't have the option of In'n'Out Burger or (best of all) Wolfe Burgers in Pasadena.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 17, 2011, 05:41:47 pm
I stopped at a chain burger joint today, got my burger with a side of Ecconomics.

This place was where I was,
They have a building they bought, maintain and pay taxes on.
They have a staff which prepared and delivered my food about as fast as it cooked.
The staff was paid and had taxes paid on them too.
I gave them money they gave me food.
Our market was free, we bartered cash for food.
Don't know about yours.

Beef subsidies get lost in all smoke and mirrors of taxes, taxes on the taxes, Unemployment Socialist Security, ammoritized building value. All that stuff. Geez, image their power and gas bill. If the beef was not subsidized and some amount of the corn crop not misapplied to ethanol making, rasiing their feed costs.... Would my buck burger have still cost a buck in a freeer market, probably? If people demanded more natural meat, probably.

What's the fuss.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 05:53:09 pm
Surely you see the pattern here. Anything bad comes from government. A real free market would not have anything bad, or if something bad happened it would be quickly self-limiting and self-exterminating. Anything bad in reality comes from governments, which are always present and therefore always present to be blamed for anything bad that happens. After the Second Coming AnCap society starts, all the bad things will go away.
Sometimes it seems like this to me too. But that isn't really fair, because it isn't as bad as that.

Instead, their position seems to me to be more like this:

Freedom comes first.

Things like responding to crime, providing poor relief, preventing child abuse... yes, they claim that it is not the case that not having a government makes them impossible. That, with a little ingenuity, an AnCap system can cope with all these things just fine.

But the reason they seem to address points like these dismissively is not because they think AnCap is a magic wand.

No. It's because they're coming at it from a different perspective. They believe strongly that in the United States, as it is presently constituted, its democracy is a sham, and the freedom that Americans think they still have is an illusion. The velvet glove on the iron fist has not yet worn thin, but that is coming soon.

The only way to have a system that doesn't turn into a dictatorship is... AnCap. And compared to freedom, everything else is minor. Giving away one's freedom in order that the storm sewers shall be cleaned more efficiently and potholes shall be filled more promptly... is selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage.

So you are not dealing with people whose thought processes are irrational from top to bottom, who think the world works by magic, and AnCap is that magic. No; the difference between them and other people is, rather, a single point of difference about a single specific fact - which has led them to different priorities than others.

See I'm thinking outside the USA. It might explain why the libertarian craze hasn't caught on outside the USA. Most others tend to be more aware of the world. Anarchists tend to organise themselves as well. Every real world example of an Anarchist state has always ended up with some form of centralised authority or has been consumed by a state, so I guess you could say that outside the USA even Anarchists tend to be more reasonable.

Perhaps it's because these people don't understand the concept of a social contract? Maybe at some point in their lives this fundamental premise of human civilisation was lost on them. They simply don't understand why people have come together to form a community instead of all sitting in their hovels growling at anyone who comes too close. All they see is the big bad government come to take their pot and money.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 06:28:12 pm

Perhaps it's because these people don't understand the concept of a social contract? Maybe at some point in their lives this fundamental premise of human civilisation was lost on them. They simply don't understand why people have come together to form a community instead of all sitting in their hovels growling at anyone who comes too close. All they see is the big bad government come to take their pot and money.

I do tend to see claims that most problems and particularly most intractible problems come from government. But the way you see these people looks like a cartoonish caricature to me.

If you believe they're the way you say they are, why do you talk to them?

Is it like going to the zoo and poking the animals with a stick?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 06:52:40 pm

Perhaps it's because these people don't understand the concept of a social contract? Maybe at some point in their lives this fundamental premise of human civilisation was lost on them. They simply don't understand why people have come together to form a community instead of all sitting in their hovels growling at anyone who comes too close. All they see is the big bad government come to take their pot and money.

I do tend to see claims that most problems and particularly most intractible problems come from government. But the way you see these people looks like a cartoonish caricature to me.

If you believe they're the way you say they are, why do you talk to them?

Is it like going to the zoo and poking the animals with a stick?


Honestly? They done nothing to prove they're anything but a caricature.

As for the poking? Yes. Yes that is it. Well that and trying to help them question themselves.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 17, 2011, 07:06:51 pm
Things like responding to crime, providing poor relief, preventing child abuse... yes, they claim that it is not the case that not having a government makes them impossible. That, with a little ingenuity, an AnCap system can cope with all these things just fine.
A gross understatement.  Voluntarily cooperating people are much better at responding to crime (and preventing crime in the first place), helping poor people (and helping people make a good living in the first place), and helping abused children (and preventing children from being abused in the first place).  Government aggression is not only notoriously poor at all of those things, it typically makes those problems worse.

They believe strongly that in the United States, as it is presently constituted, its democracy is a sham,
How is the way that rulers are chosen relevant?  (I don't know exactly what you mean by "democracy" and "sham", but it doesn't matter.)  If you argue that more-democratic rule is better than less-democratic rule, I might agree with you (depending on how you define terms), but so what?  I reject all rule, democratic or otherwise.  (Naturally, if you wish to be ruled by someone else or if someone else wishes to be ruled by you, I would maintain that you have the right to do so.)

The only way to have a system that doesn't turn into a dictatorship is... AnCap.
Huh?  That is entirely out of left field.  I can't recall anyone on this forum saying anything even remotely like that.

Giving away one's freedom in order that the storm sewers shall be cleaned more efficiently and potholes shall be filled more promptly... is selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage.
I highly doubt that a government would clean storm sewers efficiently.  With enough wealth taken from the populace, it might be possible for a government to clean storm sewers beautifully or frequently, but efficiency does not come from government aggression.  It would be possible (again, with enough wealth taken from the populace) for a government to fill potholes promptly.  But is a shiny sewer really worth massive wealth destruction, pervasive corruption, reduced opportunities for all except the politically connected, and continual conflict?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 17, 2011, 08:29:28 pm
I've been know to eat at McDonalds and enjoy it.  Likewise Burger King, Taco Bell, Wendy's, Jack-in-the-Box, White Castle and a host of other fast food chains.  None of them ever held a gun to my head and forced me to eat there or die.  No longer being in Southern California, I don't have the option of In'n'Out Burger or (best of all) Wolfe Burgers in Pasadena.

The first time I lived outside of the US, I was in Costa Rica. Though I almost never ate at McDonald's in the US, In Costa Rica, I ate there every week or two. Why the difference? Well, at McDonald's I knew what I would be getting and it was more than good enough. At the local "sodas," it was... spotty.

I really like White Castle and Burger King. Some people don't. Value is subjective. If some Dolt doesn't like McDonald's he shouldn't eat there and he should mind his own business about what other people decide to do with their discretionary funds.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 17, 2011, 08:38:01 pm
I happen to like McD's Angus burgers. Not only am I not fat, most of the customers whom I see at McD's are not fat. I've got a habit of looking at people's gaits; many of the customers are quite used to walking at a good clip.

As for the sides - nobody says you have to order large fries and large beverage; I surely don't, nor do I see many others upsizing. But the choice is there.

When I used to run 28 miles per week, I'd grab a burger immediately after a workout. Wendy's served my needs at that time.

I'm not a fan of Burger King - can hardly stand their burgers - but to each their own.

In n Out rules - fresh potatoes, tomatoes, and other veggies, sliced and diced right on the spot.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 17, 2011, 10:18:43 pm
Mmmm

White Castle

Drool,   Slobber, Whine

I miss Sliders but none to be had west of Iowa.

The frozen ones just are not the same.

Please, Sandy, please, put a White Castle on Ceres.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 18, 2011, 06:59:08 am
Five Guys.  Best.  Burgers.  Ever.

And Sandy's got it, about McD's -- their primary "product" is not food, but consistency.  There is no adventure, and therefore a lot of security, about going to a McD's.

And their business success is also unrelated to food.  Focusing on the real estate that any given restaurant must occupy is what saved them from financial ruin & made them the awesomely rich company they are.

Why should something like McD's be prevented, anyway?  I don't eat there, though their coffee is pretty good, at least for an indifferent coffee-drinker like me, and their bathrooms are reliable.  But it's not like they've got a monopoly on non-home cookin'.

Somebody doesn't have arguments so much as "issues".
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 18, 2011, 07:09:47 am
Why should something like McD's be prevented, anyway?  I don't eat there, though their coffee is pretty good, at least for an indifferent coffee-drinker like me, and their bathrooms are reliable.  But it's not like they've got a monopoly on non-home cookin'.

Corporate evil cyanide food racist white chips fattening kids and making them depend on unhealthy food .... we need to vote on food safety for humanity
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 18, 2011, 08:14:08 am
And their business success is also unrelated to food.  Focusing on the real estate that any given restaurant must occupy is what saved them from financial ruin & made them the awesomely rich company they are.
Yes. The old saw about "Location. Location. Location." for any small retail business is very true.

In the case of fast food, while some of the business might be people going out of their way for a meal, a lot is working people who want a hot meal instead of a brown-bag sandwich for lunch - or an extra or late breakfast before starting work. Or it might be people travelling a long distance along a highway, needing to stop for a meal.

And that has to be balanced against the overhead cost of rent or a lease or even a mortgage and property taxes.

Now, it is true that beef cattle are sometimes treated with hormones to control their growth, and some countries frown on this practice. And it is also true that farms aren't something one can ramp up quickly in an emergency if international trade is disrupted: therefore, every country has to keep its own farmers in business so that it can feed itself all by itself on very short notice.

Just as people ought to be able, in my opinion, to band together in societies with governments - so that, through taxation and conscription, their society is strong enough to defend itself in a dangerous world (even if this is an evil, and so a way to make it no longer necessary is good) - another of the things such government societies should be able to do is control imports.

The country has natural resources, and skilled people, enough to have prosperity. Yet, instead, there is widespread unemployment and suffering due to an "economic crisis". What could possibly cause an economic crisis? It is still raining, crops grow - what physical cause is operating?

If you cut through the bafflegab, the cause ends up being this:

Other countries have an "economic crisis" too. So they aren't buying the stuff we make. They would like to get out of their crisis, so they're selling their stuff cheap.

Nobody can spend more money that he earns for very long. Substitute "foreign exchange" for money on a country level.

What happened is simply our country's economy threw people out of work until the amount they could spend on imports matched what the country was making on exports. Put an economic wall around the country, and then the economy can be stimulated to full employment levels without hemorrhaging foreign exchange.

Mercantilism got a bad name because of the stupid excesses by George III - but it's actually just plain common sense, if not taken to excess. (India's restrictions on gold imports, though, are a textbook case of when not to restrict imports - here, Adam Smith's arguments apply. There are some parallels in the case of drugs as well.)

The problem is this: being able to trade does improve living standards. When everybody lived on their own farm, and made everything they needed for themselves, people lived very simply. Specialization increased living standards. This also works on a world scale - "comparative advantage".

So countries need to find a way to avoid every country shutting off imports completely, and then finding no way to export. The current GATT/WTO regime is the one that's easiest to police - but it creates more harm by forcing countries to experience unemployment than it prevents.

What would be optimum is if countries were instead allowed to raise tariffs as they felt like - provided that their balance of payments did not go beyond a neutral balance.

The preferred state is low tariffs and low unemployment. But the low unemployment part takes priority, so when there's an economic problem, instead of countries responding with unemployment, they respond with economic stimulus plus higher tariffs. So unemployment remains low, forever and ever; a depression just means that countries grow their own bananas, coffee and chocolate in greenhouses, if it comes to that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 18, 2011, 08:22:37 am
I highly doubt that a government would clean storm sewers efficiently.  With enough wealth taken from the populace, it might be possible for a government to clean storm sewers beautifully or frequently, but efficiency does not come from government aggression.  It would be possible (again, with enough wealth taken from the populace) for a government to fill potholes promptly.  But is a shiny sewer really worth massive wealth destruction, pervasive corruption, reduced opportunities for all except the politically connected, and continual conflict?



Griffin Georgia has a precipatation tax.

It isn't a tax on rainfall, it is a tax on covering the watershed with roof and pavement, the amount of tax you owe is based on the square foot area of your roof and parking lot. The tax thusly collected is devoted to creating and maintaining a storm runnoff system.

Would an AnCap community have any difficulty creating and maintaining municipal resorces like the storm drain?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 18, 2011, 08:46:47 am
Would an AnCap community have any difficulty creating and maintaining municipal resorces like the storm drain?

Draining rain water is a service like any other, it require a capital investment to build the infrastructure and operating costs to keep it going. Getting the first is not much of a problem, the second have technical problems to how to collect the funds and avoid free riders ... but nothing impossible.

The main problem with tax based system is that the tax intended for ''rain water'' is dumped into a general fund, to pay for the sewers and public employee viagra once the cost are covered.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 18, 2011, 09:06:08 am
Would an AnCap community have any difficulty creating and maintaining municipal resorces like the storm drain?

Draining rain water is a service like any other, it require a capital investment to build the infrastructure and operating costs to keep it going. Getting the first is not much of a problem, the second have technical problems to how to collect the funds and avoid free riders ... but nothing impossible.

The main problem with tax based system is that the tax intended for ''rain water'' is dumped into a general fund, to pay for the sewers and public employee viagra once the cost are covered.

Yes ,that is what happened to Social Security.
It was nice while it lasted.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 18, 2011, 09:55:01 am
Would an AnCap community have any difficulty creating and maintaining municipal resorces like the storm drain?

Draining rain water is a service like any other, it require a capital investment to build the infrastructure and operating costs to keep it going. Getting the first is not much of a problem, the second have technical problems to how to collect the funds and avoid free riders ... but nothing impossible.

The main problem with tax based system is that the tax intended for ''rain water'' is dumped into a general fund, to pay for the sewers and public employee viagra once the cost are covered.

I guess overall it's similar to the various other needs any society has. Ceres especially. Seeing as there seems to be a large communal habitat area they're obviously being taxed to pay for its maintenance albeit that's probably disguised with the term rent.

An AnCap society would have problems with infrastructure. It's not a debatable subject they would have issues. You would either have too many people competing and making a mess of it with differing approaches that aren't compatible meaning you would have a hard time avoiding vendor lockin. Or you would have nobody doing it because it's just not profitable.

The whole taxation thing came around mostly as a result of common needs. Mostly the common defence as well as a measure of law and order. People entered into the social contract and gave up a specified amount of their freedom in exchange for everyone else doing the same, as a result they were protected from threats both local and foreign.
An invading army would be something that an AnCap society would have massive difficulty facing. I don't mean this "hohoho we're in ur hotelz breathin ur air" invasion. I mean a genuine "we are just going to kill you all" invasion. Ceres especially considering it's reliance on a few key points of infrastructure, unless the author creates some handwavium technology that makes it possible for humans to survive in space without needing anyone elses help.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 18, 2011, 10:49:21 am
I mean a genuine "we are just going to kill you all" invasion.

Oh the invasion of the ''Lemming Mutant vampires'' scenario ... but this is another discussion

I guess overall it's similar to the various other needs any society has. Ceres especially. Seeing as there seems to be a large communal habitat area they're obviously being taxed to pay for its maintenance albeit that's probably disguised with the term rent.

Nope its not ... there is a difference between paying rent and being taxed. The first is for a service, the second is because they can get the money for you.

I would accept a LIMITED government, who didn't got money for social security then dumped it in general fund to be burn for viagra, nice cars and fighter jets to fight nobody. If the gasoline tax was actually reserved to build roads instead of being raided to fund ''PETA style animal hyperventilation'' programs or give condoms to kids 14.
If the damn income tax, tarrifs were actually used to pay for defence instead of those guy inventing ways of burning the cash in aromatic candle.

Almost all western democracies are broke and only go by inflating the crap out ... the other bunch is not better either.

An AnCap society will have all the infrastructure people deem necesary and which they can afford, because at least in such scenario you will actually pay for services and nothing else.

In fact in an AnCap society you wont find the continuous idiotic drive to build infrastructure every SINGLE DAMN year like with government, because there won't be moronic politicians willing to have their names on plates.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 18, 2011, 02:51:55 pm
The whole taxation thing came around mostly as a result of common needs. Mostly the common defence as well as a measure of law and order. People entered into the social contract and gave up a specified amount of their freedom in exchange for everyone else doing the same, as a result they were protected from threats both local and foreign.
I think your last phrase should read "as a result they were promised protection from foreign threats while being tyrannized locally".  (As I'm sure you know, the primary response of a state to a foreign threat is not to protect the citizenry but to use the citizenry to protect the state.)  But that doesn't matter.  Of the various ways to demolish "social contract" theory, I'll mention 3.

1) While it is possible that a few states formed as in your story, most states were formed by predatory gangs maintaining their control over a territory long enough for people to think of their rule as inevitable.

2) Even if some people made such a contract, it only binds them.  I didn't make such a contract and therefore am not bound by one.  For a thorough discussion of the US Constitution as a social contract (although the same arguments would apply to any supposed social contract), read Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.  It's online in several places.

3) Regardless of how any particular organization formed, what matters is how it behaves.  A state engages in aggressive violence and threats of aggressive violence and is therefore criminal.

An invading army would be something that an AnCap society would have massive difficulty facing.
Perhaps so (depending on the particulars), but an invading army would be something that a statist society would have massive difficulty facing as well.  Would a relatively poor coercive society be better able to defend itself than a relatively rich voluntary society?  I don't think so.

Have you read The Myth of National Defense edited by Hans Hermann-Hoppe?  It's online somewhere, and I expect that many of the books and papers it references are also online.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 18, 2011, 04:18:59 pm
I think your last phrase should read "as a result they were promised protection from foreign threats while being tyrannized locally".  (As I'm sure you know, the primary response of a state to a foreign threat is not to protect the citizenry but to use the citizenry to protect the state.)  But that doesn't matter.  Of the various ways to demolish "social contract" theory, I'll mention 3.

Well what else can you do? You can't magic up a response to a threat without manpower. If faced with an external threat you need to drum up the manpower to confront it and the only way you can get that kind of manpower is by dipping into the citizenry. If you can think of a way that you could protect the citizens from an invader without using them then fucks sake man do it. Make money off of it if you must, you'll be so rich you won't even be able to comprehend how rich you are.

1) While it is possible that a few states formed as in your story, most states were formed by predatory gangs maintaining their control over a territory long enough for people to think of their rule as inevitable.

And yet you somehow believe this simply won't happen in an anarchist society?

2) Even if some people made such a contract, it only binds them.  I didn't make such a contract and therefore am not bound by one.  For a thorough discussion of the US Constitution as a social contract (although the same arguments would apply to any supposed social contract), read Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.  It's online in several places.

Well if you don't want to be bound by it then leave the country you reside in. It's like an EULA, if you want to use the services or live in that area you must abide by the local social contract. You can't enjoy the services and live in the area but refuse to uphold the contract which by your continued residency you have agreed to.

3) Regardless of how any particular organization formed, what matters is how it behaves.  A state engages in aggressive violence and threats of aggressive violence and is therefore criminal.

So do the people. So do corporations. So does any group of people more organised than a room full of coke fiends.

Perhaps so (depending on the particulars), but an invading army would be something that a statist society would have massive difficulty facing as well.  Would a relatively poor coercive society be better able to defend itself than a relatively rich voluntary society?  I don't think so.

Depends on a lot of factors. Would a much larger state have an easy time rolling over a smaller one? Yes of course barring any unusual circumstances giving the smaller one an advantage. But an anarchist state would fare no better and probably would be worse off.
Ancient history story for you. Before the English finally conquered Wales it was a nation full of little valley farming communities who all hated each other. The English had no problem rolling in and conquering the place because none of the villages were willing to warn the others that the English were coming. Because they hated each other, those other villages deserved what was coming because they were foreign. So the English had barely any trouble, a few suddenly scraped together militias here and there but aside from the few rough patches they had no trouble.



Have you read The Myth of National Defense edited by Hans Hermann-Hoppe?  It's online somewhere, and I expect that many of the books and papers it references are also online.


Yeah looking at it now. The idea of giving private for profit agencies a monopoly on violence is such a brilliant idea. Really there is absolutely nothing that can go wrong there. You certainly won't get some clever cunt who decides to make the transition from CEO to Emperor.

Oh the invasion of the ''Lemming Mutant vampires'' scenario ... but this is another discussion

Well I'd say it would be a more "We're done trying to be reasonable with you" scenario. Similar to what almost happened with one Anarchist settlement that almost got kerbstomped by the government of the nation they resided in because they kept selling drugs despite them being asked repeatedly to stop doing so or at least make the business not so obvious (which led to them covering the stalls with camo webbing).

Eventually they stopped because the government was sick of taking their shit and made it quite clear that it either stopped or they would stop being reasonable.

Nope its not ... there is a difference between paying rent and being taxed. The first is for a service, the second is because they can get the money for you.

You are paying for a service. You are paying for roads, you are paying for law enforcement to protect you from petty crime, you are paying for government agencies to enforce some measure of health and safety standards, you are paying for workers rights, you are paying for the common defence, you are paying for sanitation, you are paying for education, you are paying for someone to come save your ass in the event of a disaster.
You are paying for a myriad of things. Many of which you will never need but in the event you do they are there.

Is it a poorly managed service? Yes.
Is it an inefficient service due to people being stupid? Yes.
Is it a service that could be done better? Yes.
Is it a service that could be done better by private industry? Debatable and it often employs them anyways.
Is it a service that has evolved over thousands of years to what it is today? Yes.

I would accept a LIMITED government, who didn't got money for social security then dumped it in general fund to be burn for viagra, nice cars and fighter jets to fight nobody. If the gasoline tax was actually reserved to build roads instead of being raided to fund ''PETA style animal hyperventilation'' programs or give condoms to kids 14.
If the damn income tax, tarrifs were actually used to pay for defence instead of those guy inventing ways of burning the cash in aromatic candle.

This is typically what happens with anarchists. They eventually realise they need some form of leadership entity and typically form some manner of democratic dictatorship or democratically elected council.

As for the whole frittering away of public money. It's more efficient for money to be put in a general pool then doled out according to need. Unfortunately ideals often get in the way of identifying needs and wants. In the case of the fighter jets though it's mostly about maintaining both jobs and a force capable of fighting any foreign aggressor. You can't just get those things when you need them, you need to maintain the force, their skills, knowledge, etc.

An AnCap society will have all the infrastructure people deem necesary and which they can afford, because at least in such scenario you will actually pay for services and nothing else.

In fact in an AnCap society you wont find the continuous idiotic drive to build infrastructure every SINGLE DAMN year like with government, because there won't be moronic politicians willing to have their names on plates.

Well that last thing is a failing of democracy. You don't like it then support nationalist socialism or some other more pragmatic system. Simple fact of electing your leaders, they will go out of their way to prove they were worth electing and make sure they get elected again. An unelected leader is less inclined to do things like that. On the other hand an unelected leader is less inclined to do anything good and you're more at the mercy of their individual temperament and point of view.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 18, 2011, 04:44:55 pm
Trying to confuse you

My answer ? try harder next time.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 18, 2011, 05:52:03 pm
I guess overall it's similar to the various other needs any society has. Ceres especially. Seeing as there seems to be a large communal habitat area they're obviously being taxed to pay for its maintenance albeit that's probably disguised with the term rent.

Nope its not ... there is a difference between paying rent and being taxed. The first is for a service, the second is because they can get the money for you.

Ceres City is just like a mall--many malls, actually. When was the last time you paid to park in a mall parking lot? How about air-conditioning the mall in the summer or heating it in the winter. Did you pay a "tax" or "rent" or anything to park, get warm or get cool? I leave it as an exercise for the Dolt to figure out how this is economically possible.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 18, 2011, 09:08:52 pm
Holt, your display of economic ignorance boggles the mind, truly.

Pooling public money is not "efficient" by any stretch of the imagination. You must not have had any contact with any real world government project at any time in your life, if you believe such nonsense.

I just looked up the budget for Pittsburgh's school district; it comes to over $500 million for about 25,000 K-12 students - more than $21,000 per student per year.

The budget for private K-12 students is a fraction of that.

The situation is even worse; the requirement that students be taught 6 hours per day, 180 days per year, for 12 years, has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual time needed to teach that which is actually taught in such schools. Home schooling is vastly more efficient; parents spend considerably less than 6 hours per day, and their students learn considerably more. My 8 year old grandson, who tests at the 12th grade level in math, is not far from the norm among the home schooling community; students typically score at the 80th or 85th percentile.

Your "efficiency" argument fails when tested against the real world. I mention education because, here in America, it dominates government budgets; about half of local and state government expenditures go to the K-12 schools.



Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 18, 2011, 10:10:35 pm
That's a money management issue.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 19, 2011, 08:38:52 am
That's a money management issue.

So what is your point, Holt?

Governments can't manage money effectively, for the simple reason that they don't freaking care!

If you run a free-market school, you charge what the market can bear, and no more. If you charge too much, customers stop coming. You go out of business.

If you run a government school, you ratchet up the costs every year. Individuals can't refuse to pay taxes the way individual customers can opt out of being your customers. The ability to vote down bond or tax increases is far weaker than the ability to take your child and your money to a different free-market school.

Look at it this way: you don't like the School of Blackrobed Nuns. You take your child and your dollars to the School of Sectarian Wizards. Instant feedback - your child is in a different educational environment, and your dollars left school A and went to school B. In contrast, you don't like the Unified School District offerings. You do what? Show up at PTA meetings? Make a noise at School Board meetings? Campaign for new School Board members? No matter what you do, your tax dollars still support a school which you loathe. If you manage to get 50% of people to agree with you, then you can finally make a small financial impact, perhaps stalling a bond issue.
 
In a free market, you can make an instant financial impact just by moving your child from school A to B.

That is why government schools - and other institutions - are such terrible managers of money. There is no need for them to be efficient; they have no effective competition; you have no effective voice as a customer.

Holt, you obviously know next to nothing about economics. For this, you can probably thank a government school, or perhaps a school which was properly "authorized" by the government.  How many hours did you waste there, to obtain so little?

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 19, 2011, 09:23:49 am
That's a money management issue.

To see how bad this "money management issue" is, read

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 19, 2011, 09:44:15 am
Look at it this way: you don't like the School of Blackrobed Nuns. You take your child and your dollars to the School of Sectarian Wizards. Instant feedback - your child is in a different educational environment, and your dollars left school A and went to school B. In contrast, you don't like the Unified School District offerings. You do what? Show up at PTA meetings? Make a noise at School Board meetings? Campaign for new School Board members? No matter what you do, your tax dollars still support a school which you loathe. If you manage to get 50% of people to agree with you, then you can finally make a small financial impact, perhaps stalling a bond issue.
 
In a free market, you can make an instant financial impact just by moving your child from school A to B.

Great points terry, You could ''campaign'' for more than 10 years for changes in public education and have no result .... while in private schooling you take them to another school just overnight.

Sure Holt will say that education cost infinite amount of money ... which is true unless you tear down the buildings at the end of each school year and get kryptonite for the kids to see.

The school infrastructure is not different than a Hotel and the comparable, just slightly more paid .... but it cost 1 Billions per children according to Holt
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 19, 2011, 10:18:36 am
When I read Sams statement about tearing down schools, I had a sudden image of how NASA does it's thing. But that's a whole other subject.

My public grade school was built in the 20's and is still in use. Not run very well perhaps but it still works.

Thought experiment
What's it cost to home school where labor and infrastructure are free?
Answer, the books and such.

What if a dozen mothers got together and shared a building and rotated teaching ?
Answer, the same per student for books and such, something for a building but it's probably donated, maybe. the local VFW hall or the national equivalent. Hell the Masonic Temple, everyone here has Masons. For that matter less for the books since they can be shared or handed down. In labor, less for the parents; Mom gets every other day off.

So far everything has been shared among friends, neighbors and a community minded group or club. What if we pay cash for it?
Answer, the teachers get a probably paper salary trading education for time. but maybe some money changes hands. Space is rented at the typical local price for office space. Books and such, as before.

What does it cost? Dunno this is all speculation but I bet it's less than $21,000 per kid.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 19, 2011, 10:40:52 am
When I read Sams statement about tearing down schools, I had a sudden image of how NASA does it's thing. But that's a whole other subject.

My public grade school was built in the 20's and is still in use. Not run very well perhaps but it still works.

Thought experiment
What's it cost to home school where labor and infrastructure are free?
Answer, the books and such.

What if a dozen mothers got together and shared a building and rotated teaching ?
Answer, the same per student for books and such, something for a building but it's probably donated, maybe. the local VFW hall or the national equivalent. Hell the Masonic Temple, everyone here has Masons. For that matter less for the books since they can be shared or handed down. In labor, less for the parents; Mom gets every other day off.

So far everything has been shared among friends, neighbors and a community minded group or club. What if we pay cash for it?
Answer, the teachers get a probably paper salary trading education for time. but maybe some money changes hands. Space is rented at the typical local price for office space. Books and such, as before.

What does it cost? Dunno this is all speculation but I bet it's less than $21,000 per kid.

My daughter, like many other "home schoolers", is involved in a co-op which is much like you describe. A group of parents and kids meet somewhere - it could rotate among homes, or could be the largest home, or a church, or whatever. Parents share their expertise - one is a math whiz, another is great with music, a third loves the visual arts, and so forth. Costs are vastly lower than government schools.

Too often forgotten is the cost of using time inefficiently. The whole 180 days times 6 hours times 12 years paradigm has nothing to do with the educational needs of children; it is part "provide jobs for teachers and administrative staff" and part "keep those kids out of the job market" mentality.

I think I posted a snippet from a recent Cato study. Here is a very revealing quote:

"To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school."

That is one heck of a "money management issue."
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 19, 2011, 10:46:42 am
A scary amount of down time too, 3/4 of the day and half the year, at least as far as the students are concerned. I suspect Boeing and Ford work their plants a just tad harder.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 19, 2011, 10:54:02 am
Too often forgotten is the cost of using time inefficiently. The whole 180 days times 6 hours times 12 years paradigm has nothing to do with the educational needs of children; it is part "provide jobs for teachers and administrative staff" and part "keep those kids out of the job market" mentality.

Then bury those kids into more 4 years or my country 7 FUCKING YEARS ... this is so much lost opportunity and wasted time. >:(

This compounded with the cost to run the public schools is awful.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 19, 2011, 04:08:23 pm
Quote
Schools for the poor are the obsession of James Tooley, an education specialist with a severe case of wanderlust. He came across an unexpected phenomenon: an unending line of small, no-frills private schools catering to poor kids. He found that, on average, they had smaller class sizes, higher test scores and more motivated teachers, all while spending less than public schools. With the zeal of a convert, Tooley invokes the market’s ‘invisible hand’ to explain why private schools perform better: When parents pay the fees that keep a school afloat, he reasons, the school becomes more accountable to them. Tooley drowns readers in local color, detailing every ‘bright-eyed’ school child and every ‘thin drifting smog’ above a shantytown. Tooley’s passion comes off as genuine."
—CARLOS LOZADA, Washington Post

James Tooley found that shanty towns in India, Africa, and China are stuffed with hundreds of free-market schools, paid for by parents to whom every penny is dear. Think about this when a highly paid government teacher tells you that, without the government, the poor would not be taught.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 19, 2011, 05:14:16 pm
When my brother is stationed in Kabul not long after the invasion, pencils were high on the sought after care package goodies list. Related stuff too, but those stick in my mind. The soldiers gave them out to make friends. It seems paper they could find but not pencils, dunno why. Schools were started in parks, roofless buildings, everywhere.

added, chalk too.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 19, 2011, 06:11:33 pm
Quote
the only way you can get that kind of manpower is by dipping into the citizenry. If you can think of a way that you could protect the citizens from an invader without using them then fracks sake man do it.

I'd be happier if you wrote something more like, "If you can think of a way that we can protect our community from an invader without using ourselves, then fracks sake do it."

To whom is "the citizenry" Them?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2011, 08:43:58 pm
Quote
the only way you can get that kind of manpower is by dipping into the citizenry. If you can think of a way that you could protect the citizens from an invader without using them then fracks sake man do it.

I'd be happier if you wrote something more like, "If you can think of a way that we can protect our community from an invader without using ourselves, then fracks sake do it."

To whom is "the citizenry" Them?

Contracted Professionals , or volenteer minutemen.


Tough question really, before WWII the US has a small army in comparason to other nations , this small professional group became the core of a large army that was raised within months of the first realisation of need.

There is no longer months to spare between warning and need, so can we return to the small armed force that was our tradition for two thirds of US history?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 20, 2011, 01:00:00 am
Contracted Professionals , or volenteer minutemen.
And, of course, these days, those small flying things wandering about Pakistan...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 01:18:10 am
Contracted Professionals , or volenteer minutemen.
And, of course, these days, those small flying things wandering about Pakistan...

And those Automated turrets and vehicules sending Hamas terrorists flying in piece at the Gaza Border ... the IDF have some pretty toys too
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 07:37:02 am

Tough question really, before WWII the US has a small army in comparason to other nations , this small professional group became the core of a large army that was raised within months of the first realisation of need.

There is no longer months to spare between warning and need, so can we return to the small armed force that was our tradition for two thirds of US history?

Why are there no longer months to spare?

When we invaded Iraq it took us a year to get the supplies in position before we were ready to attack.

And in the Gulf war it took us a year to get the supplies in position before we were ready to attack.

For Aghanistan we started out getting some supplies and a lot of money to a local force, the Northern Alliance, and we got them to invade Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban government. There was some talk about airdropping small US units into the Himalayas to intercept fleeing Taliban brigades and capture Bin Ladin, and the US military rightly refused. It took us many months to establish supply lines and build up supplies and send in US forces to replace the unreliable Northern Alliance troops.

In Vietnam we started out facing a poorly armed insurgency. We had a bunch of Special Forces that we had been training to aid insurgents in communist nations and help them fight for democracy. Somebody decided that if they were trained in insurgency then they'd be good at counter-insurgency too, and sent them in. Over a period of years we established supply lines and increased our forces.

We have had months or years to prepare for every war we've gotten into since WWII.

Why not now?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 20, 2011, 09:12:09 am
Why are there no longer months to spare?
What is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 09:27:21 am
Why are there no longer months to spare?
What is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile?

So you need to have permanent mobilization so your troops can be nuked more easily by the enemy ?

I though that you needed nukes to prevent others to use nukes against you ... MAD thing ?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 10:25:13 am
Why are there no longer months to spare?
What is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile?

Against the USA, an ICBM is a suicidal attack that having a large number of troops does nothing to defend.

If it's an ICBM attack it doesn't much matter whether your troops are mobilized now or a few months from now.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 20, 2011, 04:41:49 pm
So you need to have permanent mobilization so your troops can be nuked more easily by the enemy ?

I though that you needed nukes to prevent others to use nukes against you ... MAD thing ?
As I recall, those guys sitting in the control rooms of the missile silos are serving U.S. military personnel. Thus, a standing army is required so that the U.S. is capable, 24 hours a day, of launching its missiles in seconds of an attack.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 05:27:19 pm
So you need to have permanent mobilization so your troops can be nuked more easily by the enemy ?

I though that you needed nukes to prevent others to use nukes against you ... MAD thing ?
As I recall, those guys sitting in the control rooms of the missile silos are serving U.S. military personnel. Thus, a standing army is required so that the U.S. is capable, 24 hours a day, of launching its missiles in seconds of an attack.

Even if they do maintenance I believe a ONE MILLION man standing army is kind of excessive to perform 24/7 push button service.

I know that there are radar and satelites but even then it wouldn't be enough. Also the US should save money by using ICBM and SLBM only, using bomber to deliver nukes seems odd when they need 5 hours to flight to russia to find smoking ash
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 05:37:55 pm
So you need to have permanent mobilization so your troops can be nuked more easily by the enemy ?

I though that you needed nukes to prevent others to use nukes against you ... MAD thing ?
As I recall, those guys sitting in the control rooms of the missile silos are serving U.S. military personnel. Thus, a standing army is required so that the U.S. is capable, 24 hours a day, of launching its missiles in seconds of an attack.

Sure, but the original thought was that before WWII we kept a small professional army and then when we needed a big army we built it over a period of months or years.

And that we can no longer afford to do that.

The guys in the missile silos could be part of the small professional army.

There was a time when we had no standing army at all, only volunteers. Various militias would practice some on their own time, and the veterans would tell stories to the recruits who hadn't seen combat. That didn't work very well at all when we needed to go to war, but I don't see any good solution to the problem that fails at.

Napoleon pointed out that if you want to have a *competent* army it has to fight wars regularly. So you need to come up with excuses to fight at least every few years or you won't be good at it. I don't like that, but I don't see a good alternative.

The US government could set up small mercenary armies and hire them out to whoever so that we would always have a few veterans handy. But the experience they got as mercenaries who survived their employers' wars might not be very useful for fighting a war for the USA. It might be the wrong kind of competence.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 20, 2011, 06:47:26 pm
Quote
It might be the wrong kind of competence.

!!!  Mightn't it, though!

Quote
That didn't work very well at all when we needed to go to war, but I don't see any good solution to the problem that fails at.

I'm trying to think when the US needed to be at war last.  If you need to "go" to war -- what happens when you don't, and just let the war come to you . . . if it dares?

There's a story -- not sure if it's a novel, or a short, and I think it's Heinlein.  All I recall of it is an alien invasion of Earh, so we're up against much more sophisticated technology.  There is a scene in which a convoy of the alien ground vehicles is forcing its way up a mountain road.  The human (American, of course) defenders have rigged something like piano wire not directly across the road, but at an angle, so the alien vehicles are gradually, gently, nudged over the edge.  Score one for us.

Sound familiar to anyone?  I'd like to reread it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 08:17:13 pm

Quote
That didn't work very well at all when we needed to go to war, but I don't see any good solution to the problem that fails at.

I'm trying to think when the US needed to be at war last.  If you need to "go" to war -- what happens when you don't, and just let the war come to you . . . if it dares?

Probably we needed the War of 1812. Though a lot of Americans at the time thought we didn't. It truly did come to us, though.

Various people thought we needed to win WWII. I'm not at all clear what would have happened if we didn't, but I can imagine it as worse than what did happen.

And a whole lot of people were utterly convinced we needed to invade Afghanistan. As near as I can tell it was a deep psychological need. After 9/11 we desperately needed to invade *somebody* and Afghanistan was the closest to a feasible target.

Quote
There's a story -- not sure if it's a novel, or a short, and I think it's Heinlein.  All I recall of it is an alien invasion of Earh, so we're up against much more sophisticated technology.  There is a scene in which a convoy of the alien ground vehicles is forcing its way up a mountain road.  The human (American, of course) defenders have rigged something like piano wire not directly across the road, but at an angle, so the alien vehicles are gradually, gently, nudged over the edge.  Score one for us.

Sound familiar to anyone?  I'd like to reread it.

I remember that from _Pandora's Planet_ by Christopher Anvil.

The alien empire is huge, but their average IQ is about 80. They land and take over by sheer force, and then things start going wrong, and going worse, and before long they're in desperate shape. They're trying to do pacification and they keep having problems with it. Some kids do the angled-rope-across-the-road trick, and by the time the aliens figure it out they aren't ready to do more than confiscate the rope and complain to the parents.

Eventually they get pushed back. They concentrate their forces in one area and let the rest of the planet go free. The humans push them back, and back, and back. Then at the last minute a giant reinforcement force arrives and the humans have to surrender. (The story is told from the point of view of an intelligent alien who is high among the officers.)

Then the humans, as part of the empire, get out among the rest of the empire and really raise hell....
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 20, 2011, 08:55:13 pm
I have to make a spelling correction: the word you want in this context is "populace".

"Populous" is not a noun; it is an adjective.

Examples:

Los Angeles is a very populous city. ( It has a large population )

Los Angeles discourages private firearm use ( CCWs are almost impossible to obtain), and does not have an armed populace, but Pittsburgh does.


The implied statement here is "Because Pittsburgh allow weapons, its crime is lower than Los Angeles, where people are not allowed to carry weapons."
This totally ignores any other factor in judging crime rates and is an intellectually dishonest argument.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Xavin on February 21, 2011, 04:47:18 am
I have to make a spelling correction: the word you want in this context is "populace".

"Populous" is not a noun; it is an adjective.

Examples:

Los Angeles is a very populous city. ( It has a large population )

Los Angeles discourages private firearm use ( CCWs are almost impossible to obtain), and does not have an armed populace, but Pittsburgh does.


The implied statement here is "Because Pittsburgh allow weapons, its crime is lower than Los Angeles, where people are not allowed to carry weapons."

It is?

Could you explain the context that lead you to that conclusion?

You see, it's just that the discussion at the time concerned how a trained army would fare against an armed citizenry - this was the original quote that terry was referring to:

I am curious as to how a trained army will fare against an armed populous like Ceres.

I'm not clear how you inferred anything about relative crime rates from that - unless you're just making stuff up.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 21, 2011, 05:47:08 am
I have to make a spelling correction: the word you want in this context is "populace".

"Populous" is not a noun; it is an adjective.

Examples:

Los Angeles is a very populous city. ( It has a large population )

Los Angeles discourages private firearm use ( CCWs are almost impossible to obtain), and does not have an armed populace, but Pittsburgh does.


The implied statement here is "Because Pittsburgh allow weapons, its crime is lower than Los Angeles, where people are not allowed to carry weapons."
This totally ignores any other factor in judging crime rates and is an intellectually dishonest argument.

CG, they were examples of word usage. Give it a rest, take some brain pills, or something.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 21, 2011, 10:17:05 am
This is just an observation mind you, but I like watching the threads' subjects shift over time. Look where this one has gone and it is still mutating.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Xavin on February 21, 2011, 10:26:20 am
This is just an observation mind you, but I like watching the threads' subjects shift over time. Look where this one has gone and it is still mutating.

it is entertaining, isn't it? Though I note that I'm at least partially guilty sometimes (see my attempts to divert "Economic Hitman" down the course of UK voting reform...) :)

To return briefly to the original topic of the thread (moving back on topic? Shocking, I know), I don't think I'd choose "awsome!" as a description of the current arc (in that it does not inspire awe in me), but would like to take the opportunity to mention that I do enjoy reading the strip and offer my thanks to Sandy, Scott, Leila, and Lee for providing it. Even if I come here as much for the forum as the strip nowadays, it was the strip that brought me here in the first place.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 21, 2011, 10:30:10 am
Why are there no longer months to spare?



Being slow to attack isn't as big a problem as being slow to defend. It no longer takes a week to cross the Atlantic, nor the Pacific our tremendous moat is still shrinking.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 21, 2011, 10:50:53 am

Perhaps it's because these people don't understand the concept of a social contract? Maybe at some point in their lives this fundamental premise of human civilisation was lost on them. They simply don't understand why people have come together to form a community instead of all sitting in their hovels growling at anyone who comes too close. All they see is the big bad government come to take their pot and money.

Hey, don't stop with these silly, absurd perspectives--it's been all of ten minutes since someone so deliberately mischaracterized libertarian or Ancap views.

And I'll be sure to question my own views quite readily when someone really isn't talking about my own views.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 21, 2011, 10:58:22 am

An AnCap society would have problems with infrastructure. It's not a debatable subject they would have issues.
If it's not debatable, why are you here?  You'll not change anybody's minds with this simplistic blather that we've already encountered and answered a million times before.

Quote

The whole taxation thing came around mostly as a result of common needs. Mostly the common defence as well as a measure of law and order. People entered into the social contract and gave up a specified amount of their freedom in exchange for everyone else doing the same, as a result they were protected from threats both local and foreign.
An invading army would be something that an AnCap society would have massive difficulty facing.

Blah, blah, blah.  Objected to as asked and answered, your honor...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 12:16:48 pm
Why are there no longer months to spare?

Being slow to attack isn't as big a problem as being slow to defend. It no longer takes a week to cross the Atlantic, nor the Pacific our tremendous moat is still shrinking.

?? How long did it take the British invasion force to reach the Falklands?

About 2 weeks. That was a small invasion force but they only needed a small one.

If an enemy controlled the Pacific, they could occupy Hawaii and the defenses would be limited to whatever was at Hawaii already. So a small US military would probably include a strong navy anyway.

The USA used to be the best in the world at amphibious assaults, and we haven't done one for real since Korea. I don't think it's going to happen. Somebody wants to invade the USA, and they start out with a thousand floating tanks full of troops coming up on the shore.... Probably not.

In an invasion of Alaska, we could start with a small highly mobile force that set mines and made little raids and retreated, and before the enemy fought their way through Alaska and through Canada we'd have a larger defense ready. I'd hate to lose Alaska, it would be harder to get it back than to keep it in the first place. But what you spend defending it while nobody attacks you'll never get back, either.

An invasion from Mexico by anybody but Mexicans would give us a lot of time to prepare. Better still if we give Mexico a good deal to join the USA. There are 32 administrative regions there, if they got 64 senators and congressmen proportional to their numbers they might join. Then our southern border would be very short, though somewhat susceptible to amphibious assault....
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 21, 2011, 04:23:08 pm
You guys ever read Hope by L Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman? Lots of appropriate scale military and other ideas in there. For one, cut the Army down to a few thousand of some super badass Seal Green Beret hybrid, disband the main army  and give ALL it's toys to militias and everyone else then forget who has what.

Good book, pity it's fiction.

http://www.amazon.com/Hope-Aaron-Zelman/dp/0964230453
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 21, 2011, 06:31:22 pm
Why are there no longer months to spare?

Being slow to attack isn't as big a problem as being slow to defend. It no longer takes a week to cross the Atlantic, nor the Pacific our tremendous moat is still shrinking.

?? How long did it take the British invasion force to reach the Falklands?

   I don't think any of the scenarios you presented were realistic, the US spends so much treasure and effort on defense that no sort of frontal assult is likely to succeed, that of course being the point in the first place.

  We can see that the expense and troubble of maintaining an unapproachable defense is very high , but would the cost of maintaining a force insuficient to deter attack not perhaps be greater?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 07:23:56 pm
Why are there no longer months to spare?

Being slow to attack isn't as big a problem as being slow to defend. It no longer takes a week to cross the Atlantic, nor the Pacific our tremendous moat is still shrinking.

?? How long did it take the British invasion force to reach the Falklands?

   I don't think any of the scenarios you presented were realistic, the US spends so much treasure and effort on defense that no sort of frontal assult is likely to succeed, that of course being the point in the first place.

I don't think that's the point. The USA is the only nation in the world that can project force all over the world. Lots of countries have no ability to send their little armies even 1000 miles from their borders. They can't supply them that far. Russia got bogged down in Afghanistan, on their own border. They got bogged down in Chechnya, inside their own border. But the USA gets our armies bogged down halfway around the world.

Quote
We can see that the expense and troubble of maintaining an unapproachable defense is very high , but would the cost of maintaining a force insuficient to deter attack not perhaps be greater?

A good defense costs a lot less than a good offense. But of course people say the best defense is a good offense.

If we have an army that's 3 times the size of the enemy army and our army is approaching their capital, they probably aren't going to invade us. So that's a very effective unapproachable defense. But of course it costs more than 3 times as much as an army the same size as the enemy's army, that's mostly equipped to stay home and fight within a thousand miles of our borders.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 21, 2011, 11:57:12 pm
When you talk about "we have an army" and "they have an army" and "3 times the size", you seem to have lost a few clues about what an AnCap defense would look like.

An AnCap defense would be the militia - that is, practically everybody in the population capable of bearing arms. So, for the United States - permit me to use some nice round numbers - let us say that the population is 300 million. Let us say that one third are too young, and one third too old, leaving 100 million. That would be the size of an AnCap army in the United States.

They'd be armed with genuine battle rifles, like the Swiss are. Selectable-fire, choose burst or semi-auto, depending on one's needs. They'd also have much more serious weaponry - up to and including tanks and war ships and fighter planes and anti-air missiles and so forth.

They'd be trained well, engaging in group maneuvers on weekends, competing for prizes in marksmanship.

They'd cost far, far less than a professional army because almost all of them would  have day jobs. There would be a professional cadre, who would be hired to train the rest.

Why? Well, if I were an idiot, I'd say that nobody would do this because nobody is interested in defending anything but his own castle. But since I'm not an idiot, I ask, who has a natural interest in large-scale defense? Well, that would be any large-scale enterprise which has lots of customers spread over a large region, wouldn't it? Firms like Microsoft or IBM or insurance companies would prefer to live in a prosperous country with lots of prosperous customers. They have a natural interest in defending not only their offices ( which are spread all over the country ), but also their customers - not to the extent of installing guards in people's homes, but providing big-ticket items such as tanks and planes and so forth.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: MvenMass on February 22, 2011, 04:28:52 am
Quote
But since I'm not an idiot, I ask, who has a natural interest in large-scale defense? Well, that would be any large-scale enterprise which has lots of customers spread over a large region, wouldn't it?

I'm not so sure about it. What is an occupation force if not a huge business opportunity? It's whole bunch of people who need all kinds of goods and services, and it will be cheaper for them to buy them locally than import them all the way from their homeland. Sure, they'll be there to limit the freedom of the local people, but naturally they'll grant plenty of privileges to the locals who do business with them.

Furthermore, as has bee repeatedly stated on this forum, there are no robber barons in an AnCap society, because the mechanisms of a free trade economy limit the accumulation of wealth (how, exactly, has always been left rather vague). Any business that has reached this natural limit has it in its interests to reinstate the state, because only the existence of the state will make further growth possible. What better way to do that than import the state from another country in a form of an invading army? Because the same businesses also supply the militias, they'll have plenty of opportunities to sabotage the defense. The big business owners won't lose their freedom, because they will become the robber barons of the new regime (and most likely also the leaders of the new civilian administration that the invaders will establish). On the contrary, they'll get a new lucrative freedom, the freedom to exploit their workers, because the workers will lose their freedom.

Any invading army worth their salt will know this, and has made secret deals with the big business beforehand. Any invaders, if they want to succeed, will have to find a way to control the civilian infrastructure of the target country. In an anarchist society, there will be no administrative infrastructure, but in an AnCap society there will be the business infrastructure, and the biggest players in that infrastructure will have it in their interests to collaborate with the invaders.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 22, 2011, 06:41:08 am
When you talk about "we have an army" and "they have an army" and "3 times the size", you seem to have lost a few clues about what an AnCap defense would look like.

Sorry, I was thinking about statist armies. Those are inherently expensive, and the cost for an army that's good at invading other countries is a lot higher than the cost for one that can stop an invading army.

Quote
An AnCap defense would be the militia - that is, practically everybody in the population capable of bearing arms. So, for the United States - permit me to use some nice round numbers - let us say that the population is 300 million. Let us say that one third are too young, and one third too old, leaving 100 million. That would be the size of an AnCap army in the United States.

They'd be armed with genuine battle rifles, like the Swiss are. Selectable-fire, choose burst or semi-auto, depending on one's needs. They'd also have much more serious weaponry - up to and including tanks and war ships and fighter planes and anti-air missiles and so forth.

I want to point out that they'd pay a lot of attention to dual-use tools. Things that can help the economy while they aren't fighting. Maybe a lot of "technicals", weapons put on light trucks etc and get a lot of mobility, where the trucks are civilian trucks. This has obvious disadvantages, but when a war comes you have tremendous numbers of them available immediately.

We focus on warplanes to shoot down warplanes, so we can get expensive air superiority. If we win that, we can severely reduce enemy mobility on the ground and then when we have the only mobility we can win one place at a time. We don't care how much it costs because defeat is more expensive than victory. But a nation that found a way to cheaply keep everything out of the air might fight much cheaper. We think more in terms of expensive aircraft than in terms of cheaply shooting down expensive aircraft, because that's our strength.

But when we thought the USSR had a *whole lot* of battle tanks, then we figured out ways to make a whole lot of cheap tank killers.

Quote
They'd be trained well, engaging in group maneuvers on weekends, competing for prizes in marksmanship.

They'd cost far, far less than a professional army because almost all of them would  have day jobs. There would be a professional cadre, who would be hired to train the rest.

So they could raise a giant army, at need, but it severely disrupts their economy when they do. They are unlikely to use that giant army to invade somebody else.

Israel had that approach for awhile, and it kind of worked for them. But in 1973 the failures showed up. They refused to negotiate with any arabs after 1967 because they thought they were so strong that there was nothing to negotiate about. Why give up anything for peace when they could have victory instead? But Egypt kept mobilizing, and they had to disrupt their economy to mobilize too. Then one time they decided it was a bluff and they didn't mobilize, and the arabs counter-attacked. Israelis were outraged at the sneak attack, though there was no peace and Sadat had announced that he would attack if they refused to negotiate, and had been announcing the attack for over a year.

More recently they still officially can call up any male Israeli and some females up to age 55 or so, but they don't. Nobody much wants to go train for 2 weeks, and when a citizen doesn't show up a few times they just stop calling him. They have a highly trained army of draftees and professionals, and the number of up-to-date reservists is somewhere below 10%. Why put up with a lot of army chickenshit when there's no real threat?

I like the idea of real training with minimal chickenshit. But consider -- in our current army we have something like 9 guys doing supply etc for every one who actually fights. We need it that way, because supply is so vitally important. People might be a lot less enthusiastic to show up on weekends to practice moving supplies. Maybe that part could be somehow minimized? Or emphasized? "Jim's team moved 200 tons in 4 hours! A new record! Way to go! (Bob's team practiced breaking out of encirclement, they were fully competent as always.)

Quote
I ask, who has a natural interest in large-scale defense? Well, that would be any large-scale enterprise which has lots of customers spread over a large region, wouldn't it? Firms like Microsoft or IBM or insurance companies would prefer to live in a prosperous country with lots of prosperous customers. They have a natural interest in defending not only their offices ( which are spread all over the country ), but also their customers - not to the extent of installing guards in people's homes, but providing big-ticket items such as tanks and planes and so forth.

Some people argue that in a real AnCap society there would not be giant companies like IBM, that they couldn't compete.

But I say, everybody who's *interested* in playing soldier will do so, and that's a whole lot of people. And anybody who wants to impress that large group can do it by supplying the "toys" they like. And dual-use is good even if it doesn't provide the perfect nickel-plated SOTA military tools the USA currently has.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 22, 2011, 10:58:34 am
Damn! I'm letting myself get sucked in again, but this post just screams for some realistic, rational analysis.

Quote
But since I'm not an idiot, I ask, who has a natural interest in large-scale defense? Well, that would be any large-scale enterprise which has lots of customers spread over a large region, wouldn't it?

I'm not so sure about it. What is an occupation force if not a huge business opportunity? It's whole bunch of people who need all kinds of goods and services, and it will be cheaper for them to buy them locally than import them all the way from their homeland. Sure, they'll be there to limit the freedom of the local people, but naturally they'll grant plenty of privileges to the locals who do business with them.

Really? Let's just run the numbers and see if your supposition makes any sense. So, 300 million US citizens. One way or another, most of them do business with Microsoft. Let's be conservative and call it 200 million. Now, let's look at the largest armies in the world, in millions:

                  Total       Active
Russia       21.5         1.0
N Korea       9.5         0.7
PRC            3.5          2.3

So let's say China invades the US and posts all of it's active troops. And let's say that all of those 2,300,000 troops are now Microsoft customers. These generous figures still make the domestic market about 87 times as large as the invading army.

Now realize, that the Militia is going to disapprove of Microsoft supplying the enemy. Having anything to do with Microsoft is pretty much a death sentence. Now please review your "what if" scenario and please explain to us how becoming a collaborator is good for Microsoft. Did you give your post any thought before you made it?

Furthermore, as has bee repeatedly stated on this forum, there are no robber barons in an AnCap society, because the mechanisms of a free trade economy limit the accumulation of wealth (how, exactly, has always been left rather vague).

Where to start? As far as I recall, nobody on this Forum, who advocates market anarchy, has ever claimed any of the crap you say has been "repeatedly stated on this forum." Please put up or shut up. Who said it and when?

For starts, robber baron  /=  accumulation of wealth. Conflating those to concepts is either ignorance, intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty. Buy a dictionary; use it.

Nothing has been left "vague" except your comprehension. The claim that has actually been made, is that without government intervention, enterprises (not weath) are limited in their growth by natural market forces, primarily dis-economies of scale in large business structures. Among them are:

*  The need for extended hierarchies of control
*  Communications failure due to extended hierarchies
*  Inability to make decisions quickly in light of market changes
*  Inability to act quickly, once decisions are made
*  Bureaucratic inertia and conflict of interest

Just out of curiosity, what book or books about free enterprise, anarcho-capitalism, laissez faire economics, etc. have you read? My guess is none, since your questions and conclusions demonstrate monumental ignorance of the subject you presume to address.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 22, 2011, 12:54:53 pm
The claim that has actually been made, is that without government intervention, enterprises (not weath) are limited in their growth by natural market forces, primarily dis-economies of scale in large business structures.
You admit that that claim has been made, and I agree, having seen it made.

It's true that the claim was distorted in the paraphrase. But the central point remains: lacking sufficiently large-scale enterprises, one will both not have (presumably thankfully) companies big enough to invade foreign countries on their own, say in retaliation for their property being nationalized (that they bought from the corrupt dictator who stole it, most likely)... and companies big enough to decide that a few ICBMs at launch-on-warning are a lovely way to keep their facilities, their market, and their suppliers, safe and warm.

Which is not a fatal objection to AnCap, since the AnCap argument seems to include a clause somewhere that safety is not in big armies or large rockets... but that aggressive foreign states will always want to capture one's territory intact for its wealth, rather than just destroying it out of hand to avoid giving their own people a bad example.

Which is where I get lost. It seems you guys aren't even pretending an AnCap society could slug it out head-to-head with Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China. A political system that can't survive except as a hothouse plant may be all right for Costa Rica, but the United States, if no other country, has to live in the real world. (Of course, given that it gets no thanks for it, and nobody else does seem to want to pull its share of the weight, is it not forgivable for Atlas to be tempted to shrug?)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 22, 2011, 01:21:42 pm
Someone, Clancy or Cusler, did a novel where an evil Japanese businessman was going to set off clean EMP nukes here to fry our electronics so he could sell us more. Tricky devils these capitalists.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 22, 2011, 01:58:28 pm
The claim that has actually been made, is that without government intervention, enterprises (not weath) are limited in their growth by natural market forces, primarily dis-economies of scale in large business structures.
You admit that that claim has been made, and I agree, having seen it made.

It's true that the claim was distorted in the paraphrase. But the central point remains: lacking sufficiently large-scale enterprises...

You can stop right there. A) He just got it wrong. At root, his statement was nonsensical, not merely a "distortion." B) Any "central point" is your own. He said no such thing. C) No one said there would be no large-scale enterprises for two reasons:

The term is undefined, therefore an enterprise that is "large-scale enough" is may well be within anarchist parameters.

Second, it assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that defense necessarily requires a large-scale enterprise at all. By definition, guerrilla resistance is decentralized. Scores of individual and small-group decisions is what wins the war. Just ask the Afgahns who have been kicking invaders' asses for centuries.
 

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 22, 2011, 02:39:57 pm

It seems you guys aren't even pretending an AnCap society could slug it out head-to-head with Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China. A political system that can't survive except as a hothouse plant may be all right for Costa Rica, but the United States, if no other country, has to live in the real world.

We didn't have to slug it out head-to-head with Mao's China. We chose to do that in Korea, though it wasn't certain China would respond until they did.

AnCaps who live next to Mao's China have the problem that they have lost a propaganda war. Mao convinced a whole lot of people that they would be better off to cooperate against absentee landlords and warlords and such. If AnCaps had convinced them about a better way, AnCaps might have won there instead of Communists. Then they wouldn't have to deal with Mao's China.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Hitler had to invade Russia because they were in an arms race together. No other competitor was building up nearly as fast as those two. But Russia was winning. The longer Germany put off invading the worse their chances would be. and Russia had to do whatever it took to stop the Germans, including whatever it took to nearby nations.

So OK, if you look like you'd be difficult to invade and not provide any big advantages to an invading force, but you don't look like much of a threat if you aren't invaded, there's a good chance you won't get invaded.

But location matters. Back in the old days, tiny Israel was not very important but it was precisely in the path of armies heading somewhere else. So Israel got stomped on over and over and over again, just because they were in the way.

Build a giant soulless authoritarian subculture to fight other giant soulless authoritarian subcultures? If an AnCap society can't find a way to avoid that, they might as well give up. So we can hope that it will not be necessary.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 22, 2011, 02:47:47 pm

By definition, guerrilla resistance is decentralized. Scores of individual and small-group decisions is what wins the war. Just ask the Afgahns who have been kicking invaders' asses for centuries.

Traditionally guerrilla warfare has been done by populations that were too weak to do anything else but surrender. Guerrillas fought on when armies would have surrendered. They may often have taken disproportionate casualties. But if enough of them survived long enough, sometimes the enemy would give up and go away.

Afghans have been driving out invaders for a very long time, but they have suffered terribly themselves too. Traditional guerrilla warfare is not something people do because they think it's the best way, it's something they do when they can't find anything better.

I could imagine a nontraditional military force with superb communication, with many small forces which use their own judgement rather than wait for orders. It would have similarities to guerrilla warfare. It might be tremendously effective. I'm not sure what name it should have.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on February 22, 2011, 03:17:24 pm
I suspect that, in spite of numerous pointers, not one of the "AnCap is fatally flawed" people have ever read a single one of H. John Poole's books which discuss how traditional armies have had their clocks cleaned repeatedly by insurgents.

AnCap does not need to "go head to head with Communist China" - it merely needs to defend its own. AnCap societies don't invade; that's a good thing.

When the Chinese government ponders the question of whether to invade an America where there are one hundred million or more armed people, it is most likely to decide it's not worth the trouble. That could change if Hillary Clinton gets her way and disarms everybody.

As Lao Tzu put it, the best way to win a battle is not to have to fight it.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on February 22, 2011, 03:18:30 pm
I could imagine a nontraditional military force with superb communication, with many small forces which use their own judgement rather than wait for orders. It would have similarities to guerrilla warfare. It might be tremendously effective. I'm not sure what name it should have.

Why, the Cererean Militia, of course. ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 22, 2011, 04:27:01 pm
But location matters. Back in the old days, tiny Israel was not very important but it was precisely in the path of armies heading somewhere else. So Israel got stomped on over and over and over again, just because they were in the way.

Sure location do matter, in fact the US has become such a great military powers, apart from the great free market, is also its geographical location. The US has never in her History been in actual threat of invasion after 1812, the whole scare about Nazi and Japanese invasions are completely overate. Neither Hitler nor Yamamoto had intentions to invade the US and their country couldn't do it even if the Axis had won WW2.

The US is so massive and so far that the invasion would be to expensive and almost impossible, the Soviet invasion is also equally dubious. Russia also didn't got conquered for so long because it is such a BIG frozen wasteland and nothing to do with Russia courage. Even today an invasion of the US is fantasy.

So an AnCap society would beneficent from good location too.

Also another question necessary for the existence of AnCap is the question of weapons. In Antiquity the best weapon you could weld was a sword, so you needed a good deal of people to band togueter to have safety, then gun powder multiplied your power, so it become more easier to resist.

Then of course came WW2 and it seemed that war by large armies become unstoppable, but the Tanks, Aircrafts and surface ships are nearing their end of useful life. The next big development for an AnCap society would require the extensive use of drones, which would multiply the fighting power even more.

A tiny AnCap society would not only have militias, but also thousands of versatile drones which would make it even more deadlier. This could make war of invasion simply too expensive to be practical.

Also big bad ass armies with expensive fighters, carriers and tanks seems to be nothing than being carried by the momentum of Bureaucracy and Military personnel chivalric behaviour.

An AnCap society might not produce those mighty big items, but it might produce cheaper and deadly alternative ... but nobody can predict a free market.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 22, 2011, 05:04:30 pm
Remember killing in AnCap/Libertarian fighting would not be as wholesale. Which limits the big dramatic weapons at least on one side.So no nukes, germs, carpet bombing, etc, please and leave the damned civilians alone.

I'd expect them to work from the top down. Killing drafted privates really is kind of cruel, it was not their idea to attack. Morally, I could see it as a sniper's war, start with Hitler and work your way down to Rommel, a reasonable man. Him you talk to.  Fanatical killing machines like the SS, hard to pick and choose there. But most soldiers really do have better things to do.

But it has it's limits, Isoroku Yamamoto was a reasonable man, didn't want a war either, knew it was pointless, he "got" America more than anyone else on his side, hell the man attended Harvard for a while. But the war outlived him despite his intentional targeting and killing as a symbol. Others took over. A symbol, the only one most people knew. Pearl Harbor was planned in detail by Genda, executed by Nagumo, probably the worst choice for it. But how many of us ever heard of either.

Of course the very best way would be to kill the smart ones and leave the dummies in place ready for promotion, like giving Nagumo carriers to use.

Me,  I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd in charge over there than Bugs Bunny.  ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 22, 2011, 05:38:08 pm

The US is so massive and so far that the invasion would be to expensive and almost impossible, the Soviet invasion is also equally dubious. Russia also didn't got conquered for so long because it is such a BIG frozen wasteland and nothing to do with Russia courage. Even today an invasion of the US is fantasy.

So an AnCap society would beneficent from good location too.

An AnCap society that occupied the whole area of the USA would have the same location the USA does. But an AnCap society that occupied the area of say Panama might find armies intending to march north or south through it, and navies trying to control the Canal.

Quote
.... Tanks, Aircrafts and surface ships are nearing their end of useful life. The next big development for an AnCap society would require the extensive use of drones, which would multiply the fighting power even more.

A tiny AnCap society would not only have militias, but also thousands of versatile drones which would make it even more deadlier. This could make war of invasion simply too expensive to be practical.

It's too soon to say what will be practical. Can you make a workable drone that costs $1000? Say it's slow, but it can stay in the air for a day or so without much fuel.... It might turn out it costs more to shoot it down than it costs to build, transport, and deploy. A thousand of them for $1,000,000.

Can you make one for $100? A million of them for $100 million? Combine those with intelligent minefields.... At that price they might not need to be tremendously capable.

Quote
An AnCap society might not produce those mighty big items, but it might produce cheaper and deadly alternative ... but nobody can predict a free market.

Get a thousand new weapons tried out, a few new ones in each local area, and the sheer uncertainty will grate on commanders' nerves. Dozens of them will be at least somewhat effective and will require new tactics to deal with. Every time you advance you run into something new and you don't know what it will be.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 12:44:47 pm
Small scale weapons can deny the other side of territory, or of it's use.

Things for Spudit to do at nearby McChord Air Force Base.

Get a bunch of helium filled mylar happy birthday balloons, tie enough christmas surplus aluminized tinsel to each so that it just has positive bouyancy, really spread it out along kite string. Set them free upwind and see what happens.  Total cost, a couple hunderd bucks. It's easier and less cruel than plan B, tieing space blankets to waterfowl.

Either way, I betcha nothing flies for a while.

I'd do it too, right after I somehow get a huge smoke bomb to the top of Mt Rainier on some nice clear day. Having Seattle pee itself is a given, with luck, dare I hope for Portland too?

Har Har, both would have me laughing all the way to Federal prison.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 23, 2011, 03:55:35 pm
Get a bunch of helium filled mylar happy birthday balloons,
That could cause the end of the world. At least if one believes the song about it, by a German singer named Nena, which had been recently brought to my attention (it was also covered by Rammstein; even Klaus Wunderlich included it in a medley).

Of course, it seems rather dated in our post-Cold War world.

I am, of course, speaking of the song that begins Neun und neunzig Luftballons...

although, as you point out, aluminized balloons would show up better on radar than ordinary red balloons (although they're different colors in the original German, and only became all red in English).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 23, 2011, 04:39:31 pm
That could change if Hillary Clinton gets her way and disarms everybody.


In what world are you living, that Hillary Clinton wants to disarm everybody?

I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.

I guess I'm spending too much time, as usual, paying attention to the real  world.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 05:23:53 pm
Our dear old fiend Mrs Clinton,

Try this CG, google

korean M1 import and Clinton

Go ahead, I'll wait

I just did, 26,400 results, it must be a fake.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 23, 2011, 05:40:56 pm
That could change if Hillary Clinton gets her way and disarms everybody.


In what world are you living, that Hillary Clinton wants to disarm everybody?

Our dear old fiend Mrs Clinton,

Try this CG, google
...

terry and spudit,

Hyperbole is one thing, but you are both being silly.

Hillary Clinton (along with a large fraction of national politicians of both "major" parties) does not want to disarm everybody.  She (and they) want government agents to keep their deadly weapons.  She (and they) only want to disarm the productive class.

Admit it.  CG is right (on this one).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 05:47:40 pm
Good old song quadibloc, I remember a woman singing it

No one wants the end of the world,
so,
wait,
I got it,
we use smiley face balloons!

 :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

That or abuse poultry for the good of the Revolution.

Actually though, putting a huge smoke bomb on top of an active volcano spittin distance from a dense urban area, might further it more. So, would that be an initiation of force or of farce?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 06:07:50 pm
I admit it Brugle,

Mister Contrary Guy is right this time.

Damn my egalitarianism, I keep missing the Them versus Us dichotomy. What's proper for Them is not proper for Us.

Spudit feeling about as big a QV associate
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 23, 2011, 07:07:14 pm
I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.
Those people and organizations (and all other mass media organizations and almost all people who appear on them) are hard-core government apologists.  In other words, your kind of people.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 07:30:00 pm
CG missed Bill O’Reilly on his list, an Irishman who does not drink.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 23, 2011, 07:59:01 pm
CG missed Bill O’Reilly on his list, an Irishman who does not drink.
OXYMORON ... LIAR !!!!

And also CG is right, Hillary don't want to ban guns, she just don't want the little people to have it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 08:15:18 pm
Strange but true. Maybe he has liver trouble, I'll cut the guy that much slack. He sure sounds jaundiced.

Yeah CG was right about her.

But I still haven't heard back from him about the 870,000 Korean Army surplus M1s she is not blocking. Rumor has it there's a heap of  GI 1911s in the same warehouse.. All they want to do is come home, poor things.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on February 24, 2011, 07:05:23 am
But I still haven't heard back from him about the 870,000 Korean Army surplus M1s she is not blocking. Rumor has it there's a heap of  GI 1911s in the same warehouse.. All they want to do is come home, poor things.

Obviously, our current administration does not want them back, except possibly as demilled. Pro-RKBA forces would crucify the administration if that ever happened. All that history getting cut into scrap?

I've also heard that all that armament is already our property, as it was part of the lend-lease program. I'm not sure about that, as I can't trust the source. The same people (State Department) claim they don't want them re-imported so as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. I guess if the curio and relic  collectors of these here United States are terrorists, then we all are.

Also, the lend-lease program didn't keep the UK from dumping the arms we provided for homeland defense during WW2 into the English Channel. I feel sorry for them. I don't think we would bail them out a second time.

(from www.nraila.org/images/Sendagun.GIF)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 24, 2011, 07:32:21 am
But I still haven't heard back from him about the 870,000 Korean Army surplus M1s she is not blocking. Rumor has it there's a heap of  GI 1911s in the same warehouse.. All they want to do is come home, poor things.

Obviously, our current administration does not want them back, except possibly as demilled. Pro-RKBA forces would crucify the administration if that ever happened. All that history getting cut into scrap?

I wonder how much gun dealers and gun manufacturers are lobbying to keep those guns out of the USA. If too many people want them, it might drive prices down.

Kind of like bootleggers wanted Prohibition....
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 24, 2011, 10:14:38 am
M1 carbines at least are still made, either expensive ones here or cheap ones in the Philippines, I believe it was. Good and bad ones too but the mix is different, good as well as cheap, therein lies the rub.

A further fantasy, 100,000 liberators, the pistols not the planes, -- too bulky, turn up there. Do we release them all into the wild in DC or distribute them among the big cities?

Bail out the UK government again, maybe not, but the people, yes. Though I can think of this one guy...

 
Much thanks Apollo- Soyuz, I had never heard of send a gun.

I bet the ammo makers/distributers would love to see them back, most are carbines and that ammo is way less common than 30-06, ain't it?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 24, 2011, 10:59:11 am
I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.
Those people and organizations (and all other mass media organizations and almost all people who appear on them) are hard-core government apologists.  In other words, your kind of people.


No, theyre not my kind of people.  They, and people like them, hate America except for how it can make them more money.
My kind of people love freedom and the ability to make free choices with as little hindrance from the government as possible.
In short, we are "pro-choice".   ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 24, 2011, 11:01:26 am
CG missed Bill O’Reilly on his list, an Irishman who does not drink.

I didnt miss Bill-o, or Fox News.  I intentionally did not include them since most of you claim (falsely, i'm sure) that you do not watch, nor listen to, Fox News or the radio shows associated with it.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 24, 2011, 11:05:13 am
Our dear old fiend Mrs Clinton,

Try this CG, google

korean M1 import and Clinton

Go ahead, I'll wait

I just did, 26,400 results, it must be a fake.

Ok, I did as you asked and Googled it.  It turns out that the only people reporting on it are people with a vested interest in the deal.  That is, people who would make money off of it are the only ones disappointed and disapproving.

And, except for Fox News, every result on the front page was a blog or similar whiny-ness.

So its a ginned-up issue to provide froth for the Hillary-haters.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 24, 2011, 11:20:51 am
No froth required, I consider myself a moderate on the woman only believing Hilliary Clinton eats babies, stomps on puppies and steals candy from babies then eats both, but she is a snazzy dresser.

Imagine if we will, the Michelle and Hillary administration, wouldn't that be fun? How much couch space does Sandy have there in Panama?

Really, ALL 26,400 entries, man you are good. The facts though are clear. Importation bounced around DC, ended up at State and she stomped on it like a freshly weaned big eyed beagle pup. She can release it or not, it has become her call.

TV, don't need no stinking TV, it's been going straight downhill since Gilligan's Island got cancelled anyway.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 24, 2011, 11:51:31 am
Quote
Get a thousand new weapons tried out, a few new ones in each local area, and the sheer uncertainty will grate on commanders' nerves. Dozens of them will be at least somewhat effective and will require new tactics to deal with. Every time you advance you run into something new and you don't know what it will be.

I love it!  And freakin' hard on spies, too, because you'd have to have so many in so many different places.  Woot!


Quote
Har Har, both would have me laughing all the way to Federal prison.

Ah, just imagine the cachet you would have there!
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on February 24, 2011, 11:58:33 am
Quote
Ah, just imagine the cachet you would have there!
So, this desire to fake a volcanic eruption, tell me about your sex life, Herr Spudit.

Well, it's like this, Dr Freud, sometimes a smoke bomb is just a smoke bomb...
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 24, 2011, 01:18:32 pm
I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.
Those people and organizations (and all other mass media organizations and almost all people who appear on them) are hard-core government apologists.  In other words, your kind of people.


No, theyre not my kind of people.  They, and people like them, hate America except for how it can make them more money.
My kind of people love freedom and the ability to make free choices with as little hindrance from the government as possible.
In short, we are "pro-choice".   ;D

Many of your posts in this forum sound exactly like the pro-government propaganda spouted on mass media outlets such as FOX, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and the people and organizations you listed.  You argue that there is a difference, that mass media figures are motivated by hate while you are motivated by love.  Even if that was true, who cares?  As long as you repeat their bullshit, they are your kind of people.

I respect your anti-aggression attitude toward abortion.  I hope that attitude extends into other areas, but you have given us little evidence to think so.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 26, 2011, 09:09:28 am
I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.
Those people and organizations (and all other mass media organizations and almost all people who appear on them) are hard-core government apologists.  In other words, your kind of people.


No, theyre not my kind of people.  They, and people like them, hate America except for how it can make them more money.
My kind of people love freedom and the ability to make free choices with as little hindrance from the government as possible.
In short, we are "pro-choice".   ;D

Many of your posts in this forum sound exactly like the pro-government propaganda spouted on mass media outlets such as FOX, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and the people and organizations you listed.  You argue that there is a difference, that mass media figures are motivated by hate while you are motivated by love.  Even if that was true, who cares?  As long as you repeat their bullshit, they are your kind of people.

I respect your anti-aggression attitude toward abortion.  I hope that attitude extends into other areas, but you have given us little evidence to think so.


I'm PRO-ABORTION,  retroactive abortion to be precise : Kill the featus and yourself in the process.

Seriously pregnancy from rape, incest and bestiality are very low, everything else is fruit of lack of responsibility.  So in this case take your responsibility carry the baby and give him birth. At this point you can rescind your responsibility and give him for foster.

I pretty sure can see Christians paying young mothers who don't want to take care of their baby, so the least they can do is to carry the baby, so the baby can have at least a chance to live.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 27, 2011, 06:43:25 pm

I pretty sure can see Christians paying young mothers who don't want to take care of their baby, so the least they can do is to carry the baby, so the baby can have at least a chance to live.

It's a hard problem. In the USA a whole lot of black women do not get married and do not particularly expect financial support from the fathers. If there was a well-publicised program -- government or other -- to pay young mothers not to abort, how many young mothers would take advantage of it? And what should be done about young mothers who after birth decide they want to keep their babies after all? Demand they give the money back?

This would turn into another subsidy of unmarried mothers, a large fraction of them black. And I expect a large number of US voters would not stand for that, and a large number of US philanthropists would not contribute to it. I would be glad to be proven wrong about that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 27, 2011, 06:58:03 pm
Abortion is a touchy subject. Mostly because it all comes down to what you think qualifies as human as well as the right to ownership of your own body.

Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 27, 2011, 07:18:28 pm
Abortion is a touchy subject. Mostly because it all comes down to what you think qualifies as human as well as the right to ownership of your own body.

Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage.
Who'da thunk it?  Holt takes the voluntarist position on abortion, with the ZAP for justification!  Sort of like CG.

Too bad they both take the pro-aggression position on most other issues that have been discussed here.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Holt on February 27, 2011, 07:25:07 pm
On the subject of those guns it is purely about the money. Putting them on the market will cause a dip in business for certain companies.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 27, 2011, 07:54:02 pm
Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage. >>>


Parasite!  What a ridiculous thing to say.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 27, 2011, 09:37:57 pm
Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage. >>>


Parasite!  What a ridiculous thing to say.

If some nonhuman organism found a way to crawl up a woman's reproductive tract and produce the hormones to get her to create a placenta for it to use, and perhaps after a few months something the size of an orange persuaded her to go into labor and deliver it at which point it ran away squawking, would you consider it a parasite?

If not, why not?

I don't see any question whether a fetus is parasitical. The question is whether it has a right to those resources from her body. I think we all agree that the nonhuman parasite does not have that right, even if it doesn't take as much as a human baby does.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 27, 2011, 10:15:48 pm
Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage. >>>


Parasite!  What a ridiculous thing to say.

If some nonhuman organism found a way to crawl up a woman's reproductive tract and produce the hormones to get her to create a placenta for it to use, and perhaps after a few months something the size of an orange persuaded her to go into labor and deliver it at which point it ran away squawking, would you consider it a parasite?

If not, why not?

I don't see any question whether a fetus is parasitical. The question is whether it has a right to those resources from her body. I think we all agree that the nonhuman parasite does not have that right, even if it doesn't take as much as a human baby does.


I absolutely agree that a non human entity indwelling a human person would be a parasite , I remember that as a Star Treck New Generation plot as a matter of fact.

I also absolutely accept your assertion that a Fetus is human.

If every Human being begins life as a parasite  then we are all former parasites includeing all of us who are mothers.

I think we are again where we started ,what is a human being , and what circumstances allow one of us to discount the rights of another one of us?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 27, 2011, 10:27:23 pm
Let me make it clear that a baby in the womb is not a parasite.  Want me to prove it?  Go up to the next pregnant woman you see and inform her of your opinion about what she is carrying.  If the dad is with her tell him too.  I think you will find out real quick her baby is not a parasite.

You probably looked up the definition of parasite in the dictionary and seeing the similarities thought it would be clever to compare the two.  This sort of idiocy comes from people who spend too much time reading dictionaries thinking they are the repository of truth.

Spend some time thinking and learning to be human instead.  The very idea that a man would say such a thing and still call himself a man. 






Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on February 28, 2011, 02:41:38 am

I pretty sure can see Christians paying young mothers who don't want to take care of their baby, so the least they can do is to carry the baby, so the baby can have at least a chance to live.

It's a hard problem. In the USA a whole lot of black women do not get married and do not particularly expect financial support from the fathers. If there was a well-publicised program -- government or other -- to pay young mothers not to abort, how many young mothers would take advantage of it? And what should be done about young mothers who after birth decide they want to keep their babies after all? Demand they give the money back?

This would turn into another subsidy of unmarried mothers, a large fraction of them black. And I expect a large number of US voters would not stand for that, and a large number of US philanthropists would not contribute to it. I would be glad to be proven wrong about that.



I know there is a huge free rider problem involved, the solution would be to have sign a biding agreement by which they renounce of the born children. The kid is then sent to adoption so she never have to see him again.

No I wouldn't like it to be a government program, maybe a philanthropic enterprise, at which point there will be a limit due to how much money people want to give to this cause.

Let me make it clear that a baby in the womb is not a parasite.  Want me to prove it?  Go up to the next pregnant woman you see and inform her of your opinion about what she is carrying.  If the dad is with her tell him too.  I think you will find out real quick her baby is not a parasite.

Don't waste your time, dehumanization is a way to rationalize abortion.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 28, 2011, 06:04:29 am
Let me make it clear that a baby in the womb is not a parasite.  Want me to prove it?  Go up to the next pregnant woman you see and inform her of your opinion about what she is carrying.  If the dad is with her tell him too.  I think you will find out real quick her baby is not a parasite.

What the hell? This makes no sense whatsoever. How does that prove what you say it does?

Quote
You probably looked up the definition of parasite in the dictionary and seeing the similarities thought it would be clever to compare the two.  This sort of idiocy comes from people who spend too much time reading dictionaries thinking they are the repository of truth.

Ah! This is some sort of trigger word for you. So it makes you think with your emotions and turn off your brain. Watch out for that.

Quote
Spend some time thinking and learning to be human instead.  The very idea that a man would say such a thing and still call himself a man. 

I'm not sure what to say to you about this. The idea comes from the science of ecology. Mutualists live together and contribute to each other. Commensals live together without much contribution. Parasites live with their hosts and take from them. A human being can choose to accept a parasite and there's no dishonor in that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 28, 2011, 06:41:23 am
A modest proposal: 

Since two people are necessary to get a woman pregnant, a man is equally responsible for the presence of a fetus.  If we're going to disallow abortion, and thereby force the woman and ONLY the woman to take a 10:100,000 chance of dying from a little nooky, let's even the score and, every year, randomly select 10 out of every 100,000 sexually-active men (who have had even one female partner that year), and execute them.  We could even elect to use the quickest, most painless execution method possible, an option the women don't get.

If you no share-a de risk, you no make-a de rules.

For the record, I've carried 3/three parasites.  Yes, of course they were parasites (some days it seems like they still are. . . .)  But very few people are rational enough to separate denotation from connotation.

How many new people have you put your life on the line for?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on February 28, 2011, 08:14:44 am
Biologically, a fetus or embryo is not, strictly speaking, a parasite. Instead of an invading organism from another species, it is the developing young of the creature itself, and thus performs the useful function of propagating that organism's genes.

Human social organization, of course, is more complex than that of animals. Thus, it is possible for a woman to be pregnant and not want to be pregnant. The fetus, then, is draining her bodily resources to no purpose of hers. That makes it like a parasite.

But that only indicates that the conflict of interests exists between the woman and her unborn child that we already knew about. In no way does it lead to the conclusion that, since a tapeworm is not a human person, therefore a human fetus is not a human person. There is no connection, since being like a parasite in this sense talks about the situation of the fetus - but not about the things that are significant to whether or not it has rights, such as the state of development of its brain.

Basically, there are two components to the abortion debate. A fetus or embryo must meet two conditions before it is appropriate to treat abortion as a violent act against an innocent victim which may be prohibited and restrained. These two conditions are:

1) The fetus or embryo in question is a human organism of a nature essentially equivalent to a human infant, such that to kill it would constitute homicide, and

2) Under the circumstances where it is proposed to restrict the option of abortion, doing so has the character of prohibiting an act of deadly violence instead of having the character of forcing one individual to supply the necessities of life to another.

Even in countries that tax people and spend some of the money on poor relief, they don't pick their citizens at random and make them responsible for child support for individual starving children in India, and so even people who aren't Libertarians accept the second condition.

The argument that the unborn child meets the first criterion is that babies aren't able to do everything adults can do - they can't talk yet, for example. And so only a relatively simple level of brain function, which exists at least by the seventh week of pregnancy, is enough to say that the life of the person, not just that of the body, has started. (Bodily life, of course, begins at syngamy.)

The argument that the second criterion also allows restrictions on abortion involves a few points.

One is that entering a hospital and removing someone's breathing tube is still an act of murderous violence. This is because one is disrupting an existing situation in which a person could live. It isn't a passive refusal to provide a lifesaving service, it's an active interference in an ongoing condition. Thus, it's still an act of murderous violence even if it were authorized by the people in charge of the hospital's budget - to remove something like a breathing tube, either you need a court order, or at least you need a doctor to confirm that doing so would not kill the patient, because he is dead already, or in an equivalent state.

Another is that normally sex is a voluntary action. People who knowingly risk creating children in a state of dependency are themselves responsible for the costs their actions incur; they can't displace these costs onto other people (such as the children they have created) who had no power over the decision to take this risk.

And then there's a third point about laws not having built-in loopholes that would make them useless for their intended purpose. The lives of innocent children created by consensual sex would not be effectively protected if any woman could just claim that she was raped.

Note, however, that the injustice that last point might create would be significantly reduced if abortion is allowed at a sufficiently early stage of pregnancy - because there is reason to believe that the life of the person has not yet begun, and the law has no business imposing a particular philosophical point of view on people.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on February 28, 2011, 08:27:09 am
Quote
People who knowingly risk creating children in a state of dependency are themselves responsible for the costs their actions incur; they can't displace these costs onto other people (such as the children they have created) who had no power over the decision to take this risk.

No, not "people".  Women.  Only women.  Men always have the option to just up & leave; the only female equivalent is abortion.

You no share-a de risk, you no make-a de rules.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on February 28, 2011, 10:20:50 am
Biologically, a fetus or embryo is not, strictly speaking, a parasite. Instead of an invading organism from another species, it is the developing young of the creature itself, and thus performs the useful function of propagating that organism's genes.
I just read several definitions of "parasite".  None of them required that a parasite be an invader.  None of them required that a parasite be a different species.  To a conscious organism that chooses its own goals, propagating genes may or may not be a useful function.  By every definition that I read, an unwanted fetus is a parasite.

Of course, you can use a different definition of "parasite", but if your only purpose is to sow confusion then I wish you wouldn't.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 28, 2011, 10:59:00 am
A modest proposal: 

Since two people are necessary to get a woman pregnant, a man is equally responsible for the presence of a fetus.  If we're going to disallow abortion, and thereby force the woman and ONLY the woman to take a 10:100,000 chance of dying from a little nooky, let's even the score and, every year, randomly select 10 out of every 100,000 sexually-active men (who have had even one female partner that year), and execute them.  We could even elect to use the quickest, most painless execution method possible, an option the women don't get.

If you no share-a de risk, you no make-a de rules.

Since it does take two to have a pregnancy, this raises the question of the father's rights.  As far as I'm concerned, a father can only have rights in a contractual agreement, such as in a marriage.  This would help explain why a rapist who gets a woman pregnant has no father's rights.  However, since a rapist has committed a crime, he may well be obligated for the medical costs that the woman raises while dealing with the pregnancy--his restitution, as it were.

Alternately, if a woman were impregnated by artificial insemination, there would be contractual arrangements all the way around, a contractual arrangement for the sperm donor to the facility, and an arrangement for the women being impregnated.  Rights issues would be fairly clear and laid out ahead of time.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 28, 2011, 11:24:31 am

But that only indicates that the conflict of interests exists between the woman and her unborn child that we already knew about. In no way does it lead to the conclusion that, since a tapeworm is not a human person, therefore a human fetus is not a human person.

Agreed. A pregnant woman gives resources to her fetuses. This parasitism does not say whether they are human beings or not. If you live in a neighborhood where some thugs require "protection" money from you but they do not actually perform any useful service for the money, they are still human beings even though they parasitize you. Two separate questions.

Quote
There is no connection, since being like a parasite in this sense talks about the situation of the fetus - but not about the things that are significant to whether or not it has rights, such as the state of development of its brain.

Yes. Similarly the state of development of the thugs' brains doesn't say whether they have the right to parasitize you. It's a question of rights, not brains.

Quote
Basically, there are two components to the abortion debate. A fetus or embryo must meet two conditions before it is appropriate to treat abortion as a violent act against an innocent victim which may be prohibited and restrained. These two conditions are:

1) The fetus or embryo in question is a human organism of a nature essentially equivalent to a human infant, such that to kill it would constitute homicide

Last time I got into an abortion debate I looked at the various beliefs people were balancing and I decided that parents should have the legal right to kill their children until the children were self-supporting. Unless somebody else chose to support them. But nobody agreed with me.

Quote
2) Under the circumstances where it is proposed to restrict the option of abortion, doing so has the character of prohibiting an act of deadly violence instead of having the character of forcing one individual to supply the necessities of life to another.

?? At some point it becomes both. The question is what point the deadly violence side should outweigh the forced support side. I say, if you know the baby will be born stillborn anyway, why play it out? If for example the fetus is anencephalic, what's the point in carrying it to term? And while we can institutionalize Downs Syndrome babies, why not let the parents choose? There's no point in giving birth to a Downs baby who will suffer minimal institutional care until she dies probably at a young age. What good does that do anybody, including taxpayers?

Quote
The argument that the unborn child meets the first criterion is that babies aren't able to do everything adults can do - they can't talk yet, for example. And so only a relatively simple level of brain function, which exists at least by the seventh week of pregnancy, is enough to say that the life of the person, not just that of the body, has started.

That argument can be made. But stating the argument does not make it true.

Quote
The argument that the second criterion also allows restrictions on abortion involves a few points.

One is that entering a hospital and removing someone's breathing tube is still an act of murderous violence. This is because one is disrupting an existing situation in which a person could live. It isn't a passive refusal to provide a lifesaving service, it's an active interference in an ongoing condition. Thus, it's still an act of murderous violence even if it were authorized by the people in charge of the hospital's budget - to remove something like a breathing tube, either you need a court order, or at least you need a doctor to confirm that doing so would not kill the patient, because he is dead already, or in an equivalent state.

So, once a hospital has accepted a patient, they must do whatever they can to keep that patient surviving regardless of payment? No wonder hospitals delay so much in critical cases, making sure about the insurance! Until they accept the patient he can sit in the emergency room bleeding and he isn't their responsibility. But once they accept him, they have to do whatever they can? But a woman doesn't have to ever say she accepts her pregnancy before she should be forced to do whatever is needed?

Quote
Another is that normally sex is a voluntary action. People who knowingly risk creating children in a state of dependency are themselves responsible for the costs their actions incur; they can't displace these costs onto other people (such as the children they have created) who had no power over the decision to take this risk.

Now you're getting somewhere. The obvious solution to this is to set up pregnancy insurance. Everybody who has sex could pay premiums in case there is a pregnancy, and the insurance company pays the costs. The state could require people who are uninsured to put up, say, $300,000 bond instead, and if they do get involved in a pregnancy they can pay their own legal bills instead of the insurance company doing it for them. People who are caught having sex without insurance would be heavily fined and perhaps jailed, and they would lose their license. We have precedents that show this is a good way to deal with the situation.

Quote
And then there's a third point about laws not having built-in loopholes that would make them useless for their intended purpose. The lives of innocent children created by consensual sex would not be effectively protected if any woman could just claim that she was raped.

That's easy. She has to claim she was raped within a few days, not after she's pregnant enough that it's hard to reverse.

Quote
Note, however, that the injustice that last point might create would be significantly reduced if abortion is allowed at a sufficiently early stage of pregnancy - because there is reason to believe that the life of the person has not yet begun, and the law has no business imposing a particular philosophical point of view on people.

How can law avoid imposing a particular philosophical point of view on people? Law is usually justified by a philosophical point of view. I even prefer that, to having laws made at random.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 28, 2011, 11:50:14 am

Quote
Another is that normally sex is a voluntary action. People who knowingly risk creating children in a state of dependency are themselves responsible for the costs their actions incur; they can't displace these costs onto other people (such as the children they have created) who had no power over the decision to take this risk.

Now you're getting somewhere. The obvious solution to this is to set up pregnancy insurance. Everybody who has sex could pay premiums in case there is a pregnancy, and the insurance company pays the costs. The state could require people who are uninsured to put up, say, $300,000 bond instead, and if they do get involved in a pregnancy they can pay their own legal bills instead of the insurance company doing it for them. People who are caught having sex without insurance would be heavily fined and perhaps jailed, and they would lose their license. We have precedents that show this is a good way to deal with the situation.

Why do you want to create new ways of enslaving people, instead of freeing them?  Pregnancy insurance actually sounds like a pretty good idea, but why should it be mandatory instead of voluntary?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 28, 2011, 03:02:31 pm

Quote
Another is that normally sex is a voluntary action. People who knowingly risk creating children in a state of dependency are themselves responsible for the costs their actions incur; they can't displace these costs onto other people (such as the children they have created) who had no power over the decision to take this risk.

Now you're getting somewhere. The obvious solution to this is to set up pregnancy insurance. Everybody who has sex could pay premiums in case there is a pregnancy, and the insurance company pays the costs. The state could require people who are uninsured to put up, say, $300,000 bond instead, and if they do get involved in a pregnancy they can pay their own legal bills instead of the insurance company doing it for them. People who are caught having sex without insurance would be heavily fined and perhaps jailed, and they would lose their license. We have precedents that show this is a good way to deal with the situation.

Why do you want to create new ways of enslaving people, instead of freeing them?  Pregnancy insurance actually sounds like a pretty good idea, but why should it be mandatory instead of voluntary?

It was a heavy-handed joke.

Pregnancy insurance is an awful idea. When some people are trying to get pregnant while others are trying not to....

It seemed like such a strange idea that I wanted to extend it. So, you're this 18-year-old girl and some of your friends take you to a singles bar. You get drunk. You don't know quite what happened. But now you're pregnant, and it's your own fault for having sex, and if you don't spend the next 9 months pregnant then people say you're a murderer. Meanwhile your friends were luckier. They were not quite as drunk and carried condoms. One of them took a next-day pill so the egg didn't implant. Whatever. They aren't pregnant and they have no costs.

So, insurance. They pay every month whether they get pregnant or not, and it evens out. Also all the men pay and the insurance takes care of child support.

But if you leave it up to feckless human beings, the ones who want to get pregnant will all get insurance, and the ones who think they won't get pregnant won't. And men won't pay child-support premiums. Lots of them will just figure it won't happen to them. They're probably sterile anyway. And when they get sued, they point out they don't make much money anyway, barely enough to live on and have a few beers each Saturday at the singles bar where they look for drunk chicks.... "Hey man, you can't get blood out of a turnip. I'm a turnip!"

Insurance mostly doesn't solve the problem unless you make everybody pay it.

On the other side, say the girl had sex with ten guys and only one of them got her pregnant. He should pay for half of it? What about the other nine, who just lucked out. Doesn't it make sense they should pay their share? Not as much as him, but something. The obvious solution is to have videos running everywhere, and every man who has sex with anybody should pay a fee every time, to contribute to the small fraction of pregnancies. This fee could be imposed by a government, or society could set it up without a government. If the women want it, and they are the minority, they will cast the deciding votes. Men won't like it, but without a secret ballot they will say they wanted it and they will enforce it.

On the other hand, what if somebody kills a cardshark and nobody much cares? It's murder, but nobody's ready to bring it to an arbitrator because they're busy minding their own business. What if it often worked that way for abortion too?

You want an abortion. Nobody thinks it's their business. Maybe you get away with murder, you get away with killing your own baby. Do you feel like you got away with something? No, you feel sad.

Or maybe somebody says "I want your baby.". They offer you money if you carry your fetus to term, but you don't want to. They sue you. The arbitrator says ... depending on the culture ... "Get lost, you don't have a right to make a woman go through pregnancy and you can't enforce it without deeply infringing her rights". Or he says "OK, she wants to murder her child and you want to pay her not to. Good for you. But your offer was too stingy. Let's look it over and come up with a figure that works. You have to pay this much. She has to complete the pregnancy for that amount, and if she fails to do so she has to try again until she succeeds."

And what if you are pregnant and somebody sues to prevent you getting an abortion, and you refuse to agree on an arbitrator. Do they then have a right to commit violence to prevent the murder you plan? Is it OK for them to kidnap you and physically prevent you from getting an abortion, until it is too late? Are they obligated to make sure you get healthy food and adequate exercise etc while they hold you captive?

I'm real unclear how an AnCap society should prevent such murders, even if we decide they are murder.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on February 28, 2011, 03:32:28 pm

Insurance mostly doesn't solve the problem unless you make everybody pay it.

Insurance isn't insurance if you make everybody pay for it.  Insurance is protection for the person who takes it out, against some known risk of some known chance or probability.  The chances of pregnancy are just as subject to acturial statistics as other types of 'accidents'.  Obviously, if someone is trying to get pregnant, that changes the statistics. In real insurance, the rates are based upon homogeneous groups.  People trying to get pregnant and people not trying to get pregnant would be sorted into two groups (assuming that people trying to get pregnant would, in fact, take out such insurance) and charged different rates. 

Sure, some people will lie and say that they aren't trying to get pregnant when they are, but there are ways to minimize the success of this strategy.  You always seem to act like people will lie and nobody will ever catch on to the lie.  That doesn't happen nearly as often as you indicate.

The other problem you indicate is that people who don't take insurance will take the risk of pregnancy anyway, and not have to suffer anything.  The point, though, is that they can get away with this in this kind of society, but it wouldn't necessarily be as easy in other types of societies, such as the ancap society.  Just as there are ways to enforce law in ancap, there would be ways to encourage payments and/or discourage reckless impregnation.

Naturally, "pregnancy insurance" won't be a reality unless enough people think it's worthwhile, and insurance companies start offering it, but in spite of your attempts at a joke, it's worth thinking about.  It might indeed be a way to help with the problem of young, unwed mothers, if handled properly.



Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on February 28, 2011, 06:26:56 pm

Insurance mostly doesn't solve the problem unless you make everybody pay it.

Insurance isn't insurance if you make everybody pay for it.  Insurance is protection for the person who takes it out, against some known risk of some known chance or probability.  The chances of pregnancy are just as subject to acturial statistics as other types of 'accidents'.  Obviously, if someone is trying to get pregnant, that changes the statistics. In real insurance, the rates are based upon homogeneous groups.  People trying to get pregnant and people not trying to get pregnant would be sorted into two groups (assuming that people trying to get pregnant would, in fact, take out such insurance) and charged different rates.

Well....

Quote
Sure, some people will lie and say that they aren't trying to get pregnant when they are, but there are ways to minimize the success of this strategy.  You always seem to act like people will lie and nobody will ever catch on to the lie.  That doesn't happen nearly as often as you indicate.

If it's mostly honorable people buying insurance and honorable people selling insurance, then cheating won't be a problem. If dishonorable insurance companies can penalize customers for getting pregnant based on the assumption that they were trying to, we have a problem.

People who think they can get away with something will flock to insurance until they learn better. People who think somebody else is getting away with something will tend to stay away from insurance that they honestly pay into but that somebody else (dishonest customers or dishonest sellers) profits hugely from.

It plain does not work to have accident insurance when a significant fraction of the customers want to have accidents. But you can give it the appearance of working by forcing everybody to pay premiums.

Quote
The other problem you indicate is that people who don't take insurance will take the risk of pregnancy anyway, and not have to suffer anything.

They might suffer, but not enough to reduce the suffering of the people who deserve not to.

Quote
Just as there are ways to enforce law in ancap, there would be ways to encourage payments and/or discourage reckless impregnation.

That deserves an EFT story!  Assuming Sandy wants to....
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on February 28, 2011, 07:42:34 pm
What the hell? This makes no sense whatsoever. How does that prove what you say it does?>>>>

Try it, please try it, and find out.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on February 28, 2011, 09:01:21 pm
A modest proposal: 

Since two people are necessary to get a woman pregnant, a man is equally responsible for the presence of a fetus.  If we're going to disallow abortion, and thereby force the woman and ONLY the woman to take a 10:100,000 chance of dying from a little nooky, let's even the score and, every year, randomly select 10 out of every 100,000 sexually-active men (who have had even one female partner that year), and execute them.  We could even elect to use the quickest, most painless execution method possible, an option the women don't get.

If you no share-a de risk, you no make-a de rules.

For the record, I've carried 3/three parasites.  Yes, of course they were parasites (some days it seems like they still are. . . .)  But very few people are rational enough to separate denotation from connotation.

How many new people have you put your life on the line for?

This is a capitol idea!
   If the execution rate were matched with the death -due -to -preganacy -complications -rate ,all men involved would have an equal motive to support good nutrition , sanitation and shelter for women as women do themselves, all men would be interested in promoting research into female health and the establishment of clinics everywhere.
    If the trade were that Abortion would be ended then the scales would not be balenced , there would be millions of deaths avoided for the sake of hundreds of deaths realised, the executed men could go to their graves as heros.

     The romance of "love em and leave em" might loose a bit of its luster but I can imagine that a large number of men would accept the death lotto system you propose as a reasonable alternative to marrage.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 01, 2011, 01:32:39 am
You no share-a de risk, you no make-a de rules.
Nobody gets to just "make" rules. That would be initiation of force. You only get to find out what the rules are, through sober and objective thought, that shows favoritism towards none - not to men, not to children, nor to women.

Meanwhile, back to the comic. People are on a vehicle that is going to go on a course of motion that is apparently (and, thus, to some limited extent, actually) risky... on the surface of Mars, outdoors... and they're not suited up?

I guess the roller coaster won't have an accident. There would be no drama in Babette and Reggie experiencing instant death. (Yes, I know that "instant death" in vacuum is really a myth, but I presume they would be more than fifteen minutes' distance from shelter, running with one's eyes closed...)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 01, 2011, 09:56:37 am
Quote
Nobody gets to just "make" rules. That would be initiation of force.

AKA "laws".

Quote
You only get to find out what the rules are

Rules are made, not discovered.  If I am a part of a community and have no input into the making of rules, I am not a full member but some sort of dependent.  I accepted input from my kids about our family rules, so that we could have a community, instead of my being the director of a bunch of self-ambulatory dolls.

And there are situations in a community that affect some and not others.  I might listen in & offer commentary on local rules regarding, say, the care of cattle -- but since I have no cows, I think I'd do better to leave it to the cattlemen.  Since I'm not running the risk, I don't tell them how to run it.

I hope the coaster ride goes well.  22 seconds of free fall!  Sweet!
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on March 01, 2011, 10:13:27 am
Who "made " that law of supply and demand?


And that crazy gravity rule , what is up with that?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 01, 2011, 10:27:55 am
Meanwhile, back to the comic. People are on a vehicle that is going to go on a course of motion that is apparently (and, thus, to some limited extent, actually) risky... on the surface of Mars, outdoors... and they're not suited up?

I know, it seems crazy. However, when I used the exact same argument with the airlines, they still refused to let me wear my surplus Russian spacesuit in the cabin!

However, since you brought it up, help me out here. Assume a likely risk scenario and hypothesize a realistic emergency solution. I bet you can solve this.

Also, riddle me this, given the inherent risks with roller coasters, why don't theme parks and other amusement parks require helmets? Head injuries, after all, are the most likely injury in a roller coaster accident.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 01, 2011, 10:47:24 am
Quote
Who "made " that law of supply and demand?

And that crazy gravity rule , what is up with that?

Calling natural principles "laws" does imply the existence of a Law-giver, doesn't it?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on March 01, 2011, 01:00:50 pm
Quote
Who "made " that law of supply and demand?

And that crazy gravity rule , what is up with that?

Calling natural principles "laws" does imply the existence of a Law-giver, doesn't it?

That's a convention, I think, from a time when just about everybody did assume that "Nature's God" or somebody wrote the Laws of Nature in a divine Act of Creation.

The English language has grown without design, and has accumulated a huge amount of cruft over the centuries.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 01, 2011, 02:43:09 pm
Quote
That's a convention, I think

Yep.  I was tweaking plane for tweaking me over the vocabulary in use.

Iirc, Aristotle & Company, in speaking of proofs and principles and such, were using the language of the law courts.  It might originally have been a metaphor that was not intended to extend to a law-giver as such.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 01, 2011, 03:36:30 pm
Rules are made, not discovered.
That is true in some practical senses. It's just not completely true. This has to do with the difference between common law and statute law, recently discussed in another thread.

Basically, starting from basic principles like the ZAP and the idea of fairness, it's at least partially possible to deduce appropriate rules for certain matters - as opposed to setting them so as to favor one group over another.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 01, 2011, 05:52:09 pm
Quote
Basically, starting from basic principles like the ZAP and the idea of fairness, it's at least partially possible to deduce appropriate rules for certain matters - as opposed to setting them so as to favor one group over another.

If you want to talk guidelines, I'm with you.  If you want fixed and immutable, applied in all cases regardless rules, aka laws, no.  Everyone is unique and all situations are unique and I will not chain my future to the assumptions of the past.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on March 01, 2011, 05:54:41 pm
Quote
Who "made " that law of supply and demand?

And that crazy gravity rule , what is up with that?

Calling natural principles "laws" does imply the existence of a Law-giver, doesn't it?

That's a convention, I think, from a time when just about everybody did assume that "Nature's God" or somebody wrote the Laws of Nature in a divine Act of Creation.

The English language has grown without design, and has accumulated a huge amount of cruft over the centuries.


And you don't assume that Nature's God put things in order?

And how many times has there been an attempt to repeal the law of supply and demand?

Every law is a product of nature or man and its enforcement depends on the agency that came up with it.

Natural laws enforce themselves only an appeal to God creates exceptions.

Man made laws have to be enforced by men , and the laws can be just as capricious as the men.

How many times has one been mistaken for the other? "Supply and demand determine Price" is that a natural law or a law of man?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 01, 2011, 10:08:45 pm

I might listen in & offer commentary on local rules regarding, say, the care of cattle -- but since I have no cows, I think I'd do better to leave it to the cattlemen.  Since I'm not running the risk, I don't tell them how to run it.

Similarly, why should you have any say in rules about banking when you have no banks?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 01, 2011, 10:13:53 pm
Who "made " that law of supply and demand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#History
It's hard to be sure who invented that but it may have been John Locke.

Quote
And that crazy gravity rule , what is up with that?

Lots of people have noticed that things tend to fall down, but there's some evidence that gravity was invented by Isaac Newton.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on March 01, 2011, 11:23:50 pm
Abortion is a touchy subject. Mostly because it all comes down to what you think qualifies as human as well as the right to ownership of your own body.

Honestly? I think everyone owns their own body and there is little recourse you should have if a woman decides to abort what is essentially a parasite at that stage.
Who'da thunk it?  Holt takes the voluntarist position on abortion, with the ZAP for justification!  Sort of like CG.

Too bad they both take the pro-aggression position on most other issues that have been discussed here.


I dont take the pro-aggression stance, I dont think people should have guns or fists shoved in their faces and told to do something.
Most of the people here take metaphor and talk about it as if it were fact.  People do this to advance their point, usually because their argument is weak.  ("Your kung-fu is weak!")

I think that any government established by people should provide the things those people need that are not efficient or convenient for them to provide for themselves.  When the needs or wants change, governments should also change.

By setting up a government, the governed create a contract.  The people elected to govern will do so wisely and efficiently without burden and the people who are governed will provide the money necessary to do the things that are agreed upon that need doing. Taxes are what the governed pay for the government. 

But, if the governed are so comfortable that the representatives are not held to account, of course abuses will happen.

Does the government take your money by force?  Not really.  This is not Libya, or some other dictatorship.  You agree to give up a portion of your money in exchange for services that are provided.
If you choose to not to participate in the election of representatives or not to pay attention to what those reps do once elected, that is not the fault of the elected government.  You cannot, in all honesty, say that because of your lack of responsibility you are unhappy with the state of things.
Are your taxes too high?  If you didnt say so at the beginning you shouldnt whine about it now.
Dont like some action your government is taking?  Have you told your rep to stand against it?  Why not?

This rambled a bit, didnt it?

I may appear pro-aggression, but I'm not.  What I am trying to do is show that this utopian society (fantasy?) has some issues that need to be ironed out.

That's all.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on March 01, 2011, 11:40:22 pm
I guess I'm not up to speed on my Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck, World News Daily and Newsmax.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh.
Those people and organizations (and all other mass media organizations and almost all people who appear on them) are hard-core government apologists.  In other words, your kind of people.


No, theyre not my kind of people.  They, and people like them, hate America except for how it can make them more money.
My kind of people love freedom and the ability to make free choices with as little hindrance from the government as possible.
In short, we are "pro-choice".   ;D

Many of your posts in this forum sound exactly like the pro-government propaganda spouted on mass media outlets such as FOX, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and the people and organizations you listed.  You argue that there is a difference, that mass media figures are motivated by hate while you are motivated by love.  Even if that was true, who cares?  As long as you repeat their bullshit, they are your kind of people.

I respect your anti-aggression attitude toward abortion.  I hope that attitude extends into other areas, but you have given us little evidence to think so.


I never said I was motivated by love, I said that certain elements in cable TV are ideologically aligned with this nations enemies (Al Quaida) and as such, they must hate America.

I like how you say that there is not a single media outlet that panders to your point of view.  I think that the reporters at PBS and NPR do their darnedest not to be government propagandists or apologists.
But, being human, sometimes they fail.  And sometimes its not their fault when they fail; there is so much information it is easy to lose signal in the noise.

Because you think that anything reported in any media outlet that is not ideologically aligned with you is BS propaganda, then anything I say that you may have also heard on those evil outlets is also automatically BS.
Isnt there some thing about correlation not equaling causation?

Also, how am I repeating the same BS as the major media?

Is it because neither are ideologically aligned with you?  Even if they and I are different, to you it must seem like the same thing.

You see, I like being comfortable.  I do not want to be a frontiersman (unless maybe on the Moon or Mars, that'd be cool!) in my own home.  I like the idea of government, as long as it doesnt go too far.
I may not like somethings about the current government, but those I can change(with enough work).

So because I like being comfortable, I am an evil, evil apologist for Moamar Khadafi, or the CIA goons who were ordered to torture fellow citizens?
Somehow, that doesnt follow.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on March 01, 2011, 11:42:06 pm

I'm PRO-ABORTION,  retroactive abortion to be precise : Kill the featus and yourself in the process.

Retro-active abortion violates the ZAP.   ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 02, 2011, 07:16:13 am
Quote
Similarly, why should you have any say in rules about banking when you have no banks?

??

When I have no cows, I am completely uninvolved with how cows are cared for.  Though I can, and will, make suggestions, I won't make rules.  If the quality or character of the cow care compromises the quality of the meat, I won't buy the meat.  Those who care for cows can deal with that as they see fit.

I'm not sure Ceres has a bank.  They trade grams of gold; maybe everyone has a home assaying kit. 

Here at home in RL, I do "have" a bank.  My society has thoroughly entangled my existence with the process of banking, and that entanglement gives me the necessary self-interest.  Yet I don't get much say in rules about banking, which is one reason I will, as the lady said, "let the heavens fall and tread the antic hay upon the ruins" regarding the current impending collapse.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 02, 2011, 08:25:01 am

Quote
Similarly, why should you have any say in rules about banking when you have no banks?

??

When I have no cows, I am completely uninvolved with how cows are cared for.  Though I can, and will, make suggestions, I won't make rules.  If the quality or character of the cow care compromises the quality of the meat, I won't buy the meat.  Those who care for cows can deal with that as they see fit.

From what I've seen from you, this is a logically self-consistent stand. Similarly, it isn't your business whether somebody else wants to abort her own child. And it isn't your business whether they do "child abuse".

To drive the point further, somebody used to tell me about his SCA king. When anybody complained to him about somebody else's services to the SCA government, the king would ask "Can you do better?". And they knew that if they said yes they could do better, he would consider giving them the job -- which they usually did not want. But if they said no, he would tell them to go away.

It would be a somewhat different world if anybody who criticises somebody else's parenting skills is volunteering to adopt their children.

Similarly, suppose there is somebody who imprisons people that an arbitrator says owe money and are at risk for skipping, and that person works them hard enough to wring a profit out of them despite the expense of keeping them locked up and supervised. Surely you would agree that you should not make rules telling them anything about how they should treat their prisoners, and it is not even your business to know how they treat prisoners, unless you want to go into the business yourself and compete with them.

And if somebody keeps slaves -- not your business. It's between the master and his slaves and nobody else. I think that one is going a little bit beyond what you say, though. There might be a fundamental difference between an owner's right to do whatever he wants to cows he owns, cows that are only animals and have no rights of any sort, versus human beings who have the right not to be owned or even imprisoned unless they first do something wrong or they voluntarily sign a slave contract when they see no better choice.

So if a cow owner feels that the meat will be more tender if he slowly tortures the animal almost to death before he rips the living meat from the living bones to sell it, then that's entirely his choice. Your concern is only whether the meat is actually tender. But if he mistreats an innocent human being then you might feel you have some right to intervene.

But I have put words in your mouth, without meaning to. I got caught up in the argument and didn't notice I was still using second-person. You have said that food animals have no rights in your mind, but you have not said which people have rights.

Quote
Here at home in RL, I do "have" a bank.  My society has thoroughly entangled my existence with the process of banking, and that entanglement gives me the necessary self-interest.  Yet I don't get much say in rules about banking, which is one reason I will, as the lady said, "let the heavens fall and tread the antic hay upon the ruins" regarding the current impending collapse.

That's a good point. But the US cattle industry is also entangling. Their use of water in arid lands has an effect on you. Their use of corn, and their treatment of feedlot dung. Their misuse of antibiotics has probably destroyed a collection of useful antibiotics much faster than human abuse would have done so. Etc.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 02, 2011, 11:13:39 am
Quote
And if somebody keeps slaves -- not your business. It's between the master and his slaves and nobody else. I think that one is going a little bit beyond what you say, though.

Heh.  No, you were right:  having seen the difference between the US today and most of Latin America re race relations, I would never force someone else to give up enslaving other people.

Otoh, I'd totally stand between him and any of his escaped "property".  If needs must, I might also cheerfully inflict considerable property damage, such as upon fences, chains, security cameras, and the like.  And I'd be cool with him bringing me up for arbitration about it.  Do note that property damage would not be my first choice of action, though.  What would?  I don't know; it would wholly depend on things like, who, exactly, he was (what kind of man, I mean) -- and how he came to be setting up a slave operation in or near my community in the first place.

(That's one reason why I hate laws.  I want to know under what circumstances we're having this slave issue at all.  Different circs must require different treatment; why try to solve the problem before you can possibly have all the variables?)

As to the tortured cows, you are assuming when you think my only concern is the tenderness of the meat.  I won't buy tortured flesh, be it ever so sweet.  I have my reasons, some provable, others purely idiosyncratic, and they're nobody else's concern; the relevant bit is that the torturor won't get my business.

Again, contingent on the specific individuals involved, I imagine what I might do re child abuse.  I'd certainly shelter a child.  I'm about certain I'd intervene, too -- but certainly not in the stupid, heavy-handed way of just barging in, busting up the family, stealing the children away to live in a soulless institution and throwing the offending parent(s) into another one.

quadibloc wants a one-law-fits-all solution.  I think that there is almost nothing that could be more dehumanizing than to be treated like some mass-produced cog.

Quote
But the US cattle industry is also entangling. Their use of water in arid lands has an effect on you. Their use of corn, and their treatment of feedlot dung. Their misuse of antibiotics has probably destroyed a collection of useful antibiotics much faster than human abuse would have done so. Etc.

Yes.  Which is why I pay a bit extra and buy locally-raised, hormone- and antibiotic-free, free-range beef, pork, chicken &c, from a couple of farmers I trust.  Alas, my creativity is not sufficient to solving the larger problem of the industry in toto.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on March 02, 2011, 11:24:49 am
I dont take the pro-aggression stance, I dont think people should have guns or fists shoved in their faces and told to do something.
Putting guns or fists (or billy clubs or tasers or ...) in the faces of innocent people and giving them orders is precisely what governments do.  You take the pro-government position, which is (by definition) the pro-aggression position.  (Logical government supporters (there are some) acknowledge this and try to argue that government aggression will, in some realistic situations, usually produce good results.)

I think that any government established by people should provide the things those people need that are not efficient or convenient for them to provide for themselves.
If an institution only provided "things" to those who established it (or voluntarily agreed to its terms), then it wouldn't be a government.  In a free society, people form many institutions to provide things efficiently and conveniently.  Anarchists have no problem with such institutions.  Anarchists oppose institutions (such as governments) who attempt to rule people who have not agreed to be ruled.

Most of the people here take metaphor and talk about it as if it were fact.  People do this to advance their point, usually because their argument is weak.  ("Your kung-fu is weak!")
...
By setting up a government, the governed create a contract.

Yes, we have heard metaphors used in arguments.  Perhaps the silliest is the notion of a "social contract", which is not only trying to use a metaphor in an argument but is using a very poor metaphor.  The people who set up a government might be considered to have made a contract among themselves (depending on the details), but that "contract" certainly does not bind anyone else.

For a short discussion of the US Constitution as a contract (which applies to any other "social contract"), read Lysander Spoonder's No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority.  It's online.

The people elected to govern will do so wisely and efficiently without burden and the people who are governed will provide the money necessary to do the things that are agreed upon that need doing.
...
What I am trying to do is show that this utopian society (fantasy?) has some issues that need to be ironed out.
Wise and efficient rule without burden?  Talk about a utopian fantasy!

You got one thing right: the ruled will provide the money to do the things that the rulers agree need doing.

Does the government take your money by force?  Not really.
Yes, really.  You try not surrendering the demanded money (or land, or service, or ...).  The government might send you polite notices at first, but eventually you will be assaulted, kidnapped, and locked in a cage.  If you attempt to defend yourself, you will be killed.

This is not Libya, or some other dictatorship.
Some details are different, but the basics are identical.

[Off topic: of course, some governments are worse than others.  Most people would prefer to be ruled by a government similar to Canada's rather than one similar to Libya's.]

You agree to give up a portion of your money in exchange for services that are provided.
That is what happens in a voluntary transaction.  The essence of a voluntary transaction is that anyone involved can decide to not make the transaction--no money or services are exchanged.

You cannot, in all honesty, say that because of your lack of responsibility you are unhappy with the state of things.
A buffoon says that she represents me.  She doesn't.  Where is the responsibility?

I can honestly say that I consider the "state of things" to be worse than it would be if people like you weren't so gullible.

If you didnt say so at the beginning you shouldnt whine about it now.
More of the same tired propaganda: if you participate then you agree to be ruled, but if you don't participate then you lose your chance and also agree to be ruled.

If you want to be ruled (and can find someone who agrees to rule you), fine.  But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to rule people who don't agree to be ruled.

Have you told your rep to stand against it?  Why not?
There have been cases where I have given my opinion to one of the buffoons who claims to represent me.  What of it?  He doesn't represent me (or anyone else who hasn't agreed to be represented).

This rambled a bit, didnt it?
You covered the same old government propaganda bullet items which have been debunked over and over, but I wouldn't call it rambling.  I wish you'd educate yourself just a little (the information is easily available) before recycling the same old bullshit, but you don't babble like some forumers do.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: ContraryGuy on March 02, 2011, 01:06:15 pm
I dont take the pro-aggression stance, I dont think people should have guns or fists shoved in their faces and told to do something.
Putting guns or fists (or billy clubs or tasers or ...) in the faces of innocent people and giving them orders is precisely what governments do.  You take the pro-government position, which is (by definition) the pro-aggression position.  (Logical government supporters (there are some) acknowledge this and try to argue that government aggression will, in some realistic situations, usually produce good results.)

I think that any government established by people should provide the things those people need that are not efficient or convenient for them to provide for themselves.
If an institution only provided "things" to those who established it (or voluntarily agreed to its terms), then it wouldn't be a government.  In a free society, people form many institutions to provide things efficiently and conveniently.  Anarchists have no problem with such institutions.  Anarchists oppose institutions (such as governments) who attempt to rule people who have not agreed to be ruled.

Most of the people here take metaphor and talk about it as if it were fact.  People do this to advance their point, usually because their argument is weak.  ("Your kung-fu is weak!")
...
By setting up a government, the governed create a contract.

Yes, we have heard metaphors used in arguments.  Perhaps the silliest is the notion of a "social contract", which is not only trying to use a metaphor in an argument but is using a very poor metaphor.  The people who set up a government might be considered to have made a contract among themselves (depending on the details), but that "contract" certainly does not bind anyone else.

For a short discussion of the US Constitution as a contract (which applies to any other "social contract"), read Lysander Spoonder's No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority.  It's online.

The people elected to govern will do so wisely and efficiently without burden and the people who are governed will provide the money necessary to do the things that are agreed upon that need doing.
...
What I am trying to do is show that this utopian society (fantasy?) has some issues that need to be ironed out.
Wise and efficient rule without burden?  Talk about a utopian fantasy!

You got one thing right: the ruled will provide the money to do the things that the rulers agree need doing.

Does the government take your money by force?  Not really.
Yes, really.  You try not surrendering the demanded money (or land, or service, or ...).  The government might send you polite notices at first, but eventually you will be assaulted, kidnapped, and locked in a cage.  If you attempt to defend yourself, you will be killed.

This is not Libya, or some other dictatorship.
Some details are different, but the basics are identical.

[Off topic: of course, some governments are worse than others.  Most people would prefer to be ruled by a government similar to Canada's rather than one similar to Libya's.]

You agree to give up a portion of your money in exchange for services that are provided.
That is what happens in a voluntary transaction.  The essence of a voluntary transaction is that anyone involved can decide to not make the transaction--no money or services are exchanged.

You cannot, in all honesty, say that because of your lack of responsibility you are unhappy with the state of things.
A buffoon says that she represents me.  She doesn't.  Where is the responsibility?

I can honestly say that I consider the "state of things" to be worse than it would be if people like you weren't so gullible.

If you didnt say so at the beginning you shouldnt whine about it now.
More of the same tired propaganda: if you participate then you agree to be ruled, but if you don't participate then you lose your chance and also agree to be ruled.

If you want to be ruled (and can find someone who agrees to rule you), fine.  But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to rule people who don't agree to be ruled.

Have you told your rep to stand against it?  Why not?
There have been cases where I have given my opinion to one of the buffoons who claims to represent me.  What of it?  He doesn't represent me (or anyone else who hasn't agreed to be represented).

This rambled a bit, didnt it?
You covered the same old government propaganda bullet items which have been debunked over and over, but I wouldn't call it rambling.  I wish you'd educate yourself just a little (the information is easily available) before recycling the same old bullshit, but you don't babble like some forumers do.


Unfortunately, the American system of government relies on a majority of people agreeing to something  and than telling the minority that they must go along with it, or, next time around, create a majority to do something else.

There is something called a "social contract;" it is what most people in civilized societies live under.

Even in an AnCap society, there is a social contract; it is called the ZAP.

Elsewhere in this forum, someone told the story of an SCA King who, when complained to, said "can you do better?" If the answer was no, they were told to lump it and live with it; if the answer was yes, they were given the job they complained about and told "then do it."
This applies to your elected representatives as well.  If you can do the job better, do it.

Just by the accident of birth, you agree to become a citizen of the country you live in.  This means you are ruled by whatever means your country is ruled.  If you do not agree to that rule, you are often free to move to such a place as is agreeable.

The example of "wise and efficient" was an example of what should be, not what is.

Your buffoon does not see you as a person worth representing.  I would not wish to communicate with a constituent who's only description of me was "buffoon" and who's complaints come to the sum total of "I hate this system of government and I wish to abolish it and replace it with nothing".
There is nothing that your representative can do to remedy your complaint.

Your responsibility comes in trying to change the system to your liking through the rules of the system in place. 
If you choose not to participate in making the system of government represent your interests, then you have no standing to complain if the system of government doesnt represent your interests.

[Sigh] Yes, you can still complain if you dont participate; but then you are the buffoon, not the system.

In the area of Seattle, there are people who believe that, when interacting with a police officer, they should be able to assault that person even if the officer is not speaking to them and not be held accountable for their actions.
Your expectation that if you break your contract with your governing authority will lead to to brutality leads me to believe you are one of these people I describe above.
If you live in a repressive (Libya-like) country, you are forgiven your opinion.

If you assault a police officer because you expect that officer to brutalize you and you wish to strike first, how then can an officer react in any way other than to live up to your expectation?
Does not any person have the right to self-defense?

In closing, you say that my arguments are BS simply because you disagree with them.  Is that anyway for civilized beings to behave?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on March 02, 2011, 01:31:14 pm
I like how you say that there is not a single media outlet that panders to your point of view.
No, I restricted my comments to mass media organizations and the great majority of the people who regularly appear on them.

Given that restriction, depending on the definition of "pander" that you are using, your statement might be true.  (There are more definitions for "pander" which would make your statement false.)

I think that the reporters at PBS and NPR do their darnedest not to be government propagandists or apologists.
But, being human, sometimes they fail.  And sometimes its not their fault when they fail; there is so much information it is easy to lose signal in the noise.
Again, when I was talking about actions, you want to talk about intentions.  I don't particularly care why reporters at mass media outlets almost always take a pro-government line.  I care about recognizing propaganda, discounting it, and (in the subjects that interest me) attempting to find the truth.  But since you want to talk about intentions, I'll try.

Many of the big events that affect people involve governments.  Propaganda or not, people are interested in what government officials have to say.  Without access to government agents (in both official and unofficial ways), mass media organizations would shrivel and die.  This affects all levels.  A reporter who takes a pro-government line (whether the reporter believes it or not) will get access and prosper.  Reporters' bosses are aware of the need for access (again, whether they believe the propaganda or not) and will choose stories accordingly.  A simple story of evolution in a social context.

But there are psychological reasons to think that reporters will tend to believe government propaganda.  I am not particularly interested in this, and I don't know how good the arguments are, but if you are I'm sure you can find material online.  If I remember correctly, one idea is that people who tend to be wordsmiths (and who are more likely to become reporters) are "rewarded" by school officials but are not especially successful in a free market, creating the desire for government to reward the people the wordsmiths consider more deserving (such as themselves).  If I remember correctly, another idea is that reporters are likely to want to "save the world" and see government as the vehicle to do so.

OK, that's enough about intentions.  Look the stuff up for yourself.

Because you think that anything reported in any media outlet that is not ideologically aligned with you is BS propaganda, then anything I say that you may have also heard on those evil outlets is also automatically BS.
Evil?  I wouldn't call them evil.

And no, I don't think that.  Please reread what I wrote.

Isnt there some thing about correlation not equaling causation?
Yes.  It is a useful principle.  Try to apply it when it is appropriate.

IAlso, how am I repeating the same BS as the major media?
...
You see, I like being comfortable.  I do not want to be a frontiersman (unless maybe on the Moon or Mars, that'd be cool!) in my own home.  I like the idea of government, as long as it doesnt go too far.
I may not like somethings about the current government, but those I can change(with enough work).
I hear mass media reporters say that government helps improve general prosperity, ignoring both history and social science.  I hear mass media reporters suggest that government is necessary to regulate complexity, ignoring common sense.  I hear mass media reporters describe government atrocities and dismiss them as isolated incidents, ignoring what they (and countless others) have reported over and over again.  I hear mass media reporters suggest that government is responsive to its people, ignoring government lies.

Do you still wonder why I consider you and mass media reporters to be essentially the same?

So because I like being comfortable, I am an evil, evil apologist for Moamar Khadafi, or the CIA goons who were ordered to torture fellow citizens?
This silliness is why most people won't respond to you.  Most anarchists like comfort as well, but in contrast to you they are not willing to use government aggression in a (probably futile) effort to improve their own comfort at the expense of the government's victims.

However, you do embrace the same basic political philosophy as Muammar Gaddafi and CIA (and other US government) torturers.  Does this make you an apologist for them?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  It certainly makes you an apologist for government.  Does this make you evil?  I don't know--accusations of evil are more your thing than mine.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on March 02, 2011, 02:34:33 pm
Unfortunately, the American system of government relies on a majority of people agreeing to something  and than telling the minority that they must go along with it, or, next time around, create a majority to do something else.
All systems of government involve some group telling another group that they must obey or else.

There is something called a "social contract;" it is what most people in civilized societies live under.
You've tried using the "social contract" metaphor before.  FAIL

Even in an AnCap society, there is a social contract; it is called the ZAP.
Not in the sense that you use "social contract".  In a free society, if you and your friends want to form a government to rule you, nobody will use aggression to stop you.  We don't claim that the ZAP binds you.  (We might help anyone trying to escape from your statist hellhole, but we won't interfere with people who voluntarily agree to be ruled.)  However, the ZAP does establish the principles under which people who have agreed to it will respond to aggression.

Elsewhere in this forum, someone told the story of an SCA King who, when complained to, said "can you do better?" If the answer was no, they were told to lump it and live with it; if the answer was yes, they were given the job they complained about and told "then do it."
This applies to your elected representatives as well.  If you can do the job better, do it.
More silliness.  If I tell "my elected representative" that I can do the job better, I'll get the job?  Fat chance.

Just by the accident of birth, you agree to become a citizen of the country you live in.
The "original sin" government propaganda bullet point!  You and your coreligionists can believe that all you want, but your attempt to force your faith on other people won't work on everyone.

This means you are ruled by whatever means your country is ruled.  If you do not agree to that rule, you are often free to move to such a place as is agreeable.
And now the "government owns everything" propaganda bullet point!  No, it doesn't.

[Off-topic.  A government that allows people to leave without interference is better than one like the US government which is better than a government that prevents almost anyone from leaving.]

The example of "wise and efficient" was an example of what should be, not what is.
A "wise and efficient" government is also an example of a utopian fantasy.

Your responsibility comes in trying to change the system to your liking through the rules of the system in place.
This is a perfect example of government propaganda.  If you don't see why, think about it.

In the area of Seattle, there are people who believe that, when interacting with a police officer, they should be able to assault that person even if the officer is not speaking to them and not be held accountable for their actions.
In many places including Seattle, police officers routinely commit serious crimes (under existing government laws!) and get away with them.  Unless they are recorded committing a serious crime and the recording is made public, police are above the law.  Even when police are recorded committing serious crimes, they almost always get far less punishment than a non-government person would receive.  (This ignores how police can legally do things that would be crimes when committed by non-government people.)

Your expectation that if you break your contract with your governing authority will lead to to brutality
I have made no contract.

Brutality is what government is all about.  No contract-breaking is required.

If you assault a police officer because you expect that officer to brutalize you and you wish to strike first, how then can an officer react in any way other than to live up to your expectation?
Are you an LEO?  That sounds exactly like psychological projection.

Police frequently assault people who have broken no laws, then arrest the victim for "resisting arrest".  Many police have literally gotten away with murder, by saying "I feared for my life" even though the victim did nothing threatening.

Sure, some police won't assault people who have broken no laws.  But those police do routinely cover up for the brutality of other police.  As long as they do so, they are almost as bad as the "bad apples".  Are there any police who won't show "professional courtesy" to other police?  I read about one back in California about 40 years ago--that may have been the last.

From an AnCap point of view, most police routinely commit crimes against innocent people who have broken an arbitrary and corrupt government edict.  (This ignores the crime of collecting taxes.)  In a just society, anyone who commits such a crime would have to make restitution to the victim, but we don't live in anything remotely resembling a just society.

[Off-topic: Even though I understand the frustration that some people feel witnessing criminal police activity, I consider attacking random police officers to be crazy and would never suggest that anyone do so.]
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on March 02, 2011, 02:50:59 pm
People like CG seem to miss an important point about the "social contract" and government services--you are given little choice, no opt-out clause.  It's like a music service that sends you albums once a month that you then pay for, except you cannot cancel the service, and you never signed up for it in the first place--they just started showing up automatically.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 02, 2011, 03:10:33 pm

Elsewhere in this forum, someone told the story of an SCA King who, when complained to, said "can you do better?" If the answer was no, they were told to lump it and live with it; if the answer was yes, they were given the job they complained about and told "then do it."

The complainer didn't necessarily get the job. There was just the chance he would be given it by his King, and then have all the social consequences of failure if he failed. He had to consider that possibility.

Quote
Quote
This applies to your elected representatives as well.  If you can do the job better, do it.
More silliness.  If I tell "my elected representative" that I can do the job better, I'll get the job?  Fat chance.

Even worse. If they provide a "service" for "free", paid for by taxes, you have the opportunity to compete with them. You can charge money to do similar things, provided those things are legal for you to do. And if your quality is sufficiently high then some people may choose to pay you to do what they could get free at government quality.

The biggest example I've seen of this working out is education. Many people choose to pay for private school for their children rather than accept "free" public schools. My wife's parents did that. for the years they thought they could afford it. They paid for a Baptist school that had no black students. She did not feel that she was advanced compared to the public school students she later joined, but she did get very good at memorizing Bible verses. I think maybe public schools don't put enough emphasis on mnemonics.

Still, it's hard to compete with somebody who can offer their product for free. That might have something to do with why private schools put out so much hasbarah about how they are so very much better than public schools, and spread horror stories about how terrible the public schools always are.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on March 02, 2011, 03:24:08 pm
People like CG seem to miss an important point about the "social contract" and government services--you are given little choice, no opt-out clause.  It's like a music service that sends you albums once a month that you then pay for, except you cannot cancel the service, and you never signed up for it in the first place--they just started showing up automatically.


What CG forget is that if you wife couldn't divorce, you could submit her to all sort of imaginable humiliations, tortures and work ... problem is that we are getting screwed in the People-Gov relationship
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on March 02, 2011, 04:26:09 pm

Elsewhere in this forum, someone told the story of an SCA King who, when complained to, said "can you do better?" If the answer was no, they were told to lump it and live with it; if the answer was yes, they were given the job they complained about and told "then do it."

The complainer didn't necessarily get the job. There was just the chance he would be given it by his King, and then have all the social consequences of failure if he failed. He had to consider that possibility.

Quote
Quote
This applies to your elected representatives as well.  If you can do the job better, do it.
More silliness.  If I tell "my elected representative" that I can do the job better, I'll get the job?  Fat chance.

Even worse. If they provide a "service" for "free", paid for by taxes, you have the opportunity to compete with them. You can charge money to do similar things, provided those things are legal for you to do. And if your quality is sufficiently high then some people may choose to pay you to do what they could get free at government quality.

The biggest example I've seen of this working out is education. Many people choose to pay for private school for their children rather than accept "free" public schools. My wife's parents did that. for the years they thought they could afford it. They paid for a Baptist school that had no black students. She did not feel that she was advanced compared to the public school students she later joined, but she did get very good at memorizing Bible verses. I think maybe public schools don't put enough emphasis on mnemonics.

Still, it's hard to compete with somebody who can offer their product for free. That might have something to do with why private schools put out so much hasbarah about how they are so very much better than public schools, and spread horror stories about how terrible the public schools always are.


It's always possible to cherry-pick your example of a private school, of course.

How about pointing us to government schools which teach 8 year olds things like algebra and computer programming, plus the whole host of other things which my grandson has already learned at home, such as negative numbers, exponents, binary arithmetic, and numerous other skills where he places from the 9th to the 18th "grade level" on standardized tests?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 02, 2011, 04:34:58 pm
Just by the accident of birth, you agree to become a citizen of the country you live in.
The "original sin" government propaganda bullet point!  You and your coreligionists can believe that all you want, but your attempt to force your faith on other people won't work on everyone.
Here, you're absolutely right. It is morally indefensible to argue that parents have the right to contract their children into slavery.

[Off-topic.  A government that allows people to leave without interference is better than one like the US government which is better than a government that prevents almost anyone from leaving.]
But this is not off-topic. It is highly pertinent to the point at issue.

There is no principled, moral, defense of State power to initiate force.

It might be possible to defend some kind of a minarchy on the basis that the schemes some have proposed for choosing arbitrators are impractical, and so there has to be an elected government of sorts limited to impartial enforcement of the ZAP. Or perhaps it should be called the MAP, since it would be supported by (very low, by current standards) taxes. Ayn Rand proposed a "stamp tax" on contracts in order for them to be enforceable as a way to avoid outright taxation, since now this would be a fee for service; but she still didn't envisage that competition in enforcement would be practical.

But if we look at the book The Parable of the Tribes by Andrew Bard Schmookler, we see the origin of the State. First, farmers organized themselves to be able to defend themselves against predatory attacks by nomadic herdsmen. Then they conquered the herdsmen, and their states grew - in order to defend themselves against attacks by other similar states.

It may be - as the current story arc is going to attempt to demonstrate - that AnCap societies can defend themselves against military aggression by states successfully. I have my doubts. It seems a state society is required for things like D-Day and the Manhattan Project.

Of course, maybe it was having a state society that led to the obvious remedy being avoided by cowardly politicians - assassinating Hitler. Anytime after the Kristallnacht, that would not have been initiation of force.

And, of course, one of the favored conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination was that it was revenge for a CIA plot to assassinate Castro. After all, Lee Harvey Oswald's first claim to fame was defecting to the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: macsnafu on March 02, 2011, 04:47:06 pm


But if we look at the book The Parable of the Tribes by Andrew Bard Schmookler, we see the origin of the State. First, farmers organized themselves to be able to defend themselves against predatory attacks by nomadic herdsmen. Then they conquered the herdsmen, and their states grew - in order to defend themselves against attacks by other similar states.

I'm not aware of any historical text that shows, much less proves, how the state was originally started.  But assuming that they did indeed originally organized in order to defend against attacks, history clearly shows that this power structure was usurped and subverted by power hungry individuals who wished to control others:  witch doctors, kings, emperors, etc. 

The message of history should be clear enough.  You shouldn't organize in *those* ways for defense--instead you organize in ways that don't create a power structure  that can be usurped.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 02, 2011, 04:50:16 pm
I'm not aware of any historical text that shows, much less proves, how the state was originally started.  But assuming that they did indeed originally organized in order to defend against attacks, history clearly shows that this power structure was usurped and subverted by power hungry individuals who wished to control others:  witch doctors, kings, emperors, etc. 

The message of history should be clear enough.  You shouldn't organize in *those* ways for defense--instead you organize in ways that don't create a power structure  that can be usurped.
The existence of this usurpation was acknowledged by the book in question. But the assumption was that people did try to organize in other ways, as best they could, that left them more freedom.

But none of them worked.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on March 02, 2011, 05:18:27 pm

I'm PRO-ABORTION,  retroactive abortion to be precise : Kill the featus and yourself in the process.

Retro-active abortion violates the ZAP.   ;D

that an inconsistency I can live with
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 02, 2011, 06:33:02 pm
My society has thoroughly entangled my existence with the process of banking, and that entanglement gives me the necessary self-interest.  Yet I don't get much say in rules about banking,

Would you like some say? A couple of years ago, I figured out to create an entity in Panama that could offer most bank-like services without being regulated as a bank. If anyone on the list is interested in starting such an enterprise, contact me off-line, using encryption:

PGP Public Key:   http://sandfort.biz/sandy.asc
Hushmail Addr.:   planc@hushmail.com

If you do not know what that means, you have to install PGP or GPG on your computer. For Hushmail, you have to sign up for an account.

Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 03, 2011, 12:34:29 am
I'm not aware of any historical text that shows, much less proves, how the state was originally started.  But assuming that they did indeed originally organized in order to defend against attacks, history clearly shows that this power structure was usurped and subverted by power hungry individuals who wished to control others:  witch doctors, kings, emperors, etc. 

The message of history should be clear enough.  You shouldn't organize in *those* ways for defense--instead you organize in ways that don't create a power structure  that can be usurped.
The existence of this usurpation was acknowledged by the book in question. But the assumption was that people did try to organize in other ways, as best they could, that left them more freedom.

But none of them worked.

Early anthropologists found a bewildering variety of cultures.

But while the anthropologists were doing their work, the British Empire was also at work. It sent soldiers everywhere the locals couldn't stop them where there was business to be done. Soldiers with modern bayonets and cannon, and later machine guns. They slaughtered armies that tried to oppose them. And everywhere they expected to see kingdoms, and where they didn't find anything that looked like a kingdom they established kingdoms.

The british army was special. There weren't many kingdoms that could withstand it, so a nonkingdom that could stop them would have been very special.

But there might have been other arrangements that worked until then. After the Borg comes through you can look around and say "See, you can look for other ways to set up a society, but there isn't anything that works except the Borg." But there could be lots of societies that work for everything except beating the Borg.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Plane on March 03, 2011, 12:38:48 am
But if we look at the book The Parable of the Tribes by Andrew Bard Schmookler, we see the origin of the State. First, farmers organized themselves to be able to defend themselves against predatory attacks by nomadic herdsmen. Then they conquered the herdsmen, and their states grew - in order to defend themselves against attacks by other similar states.


I think a tendancy to government predates agriculture quite a lot.

Let me reccommend this book A Primate's Memoir  http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Memoir-Neuroscientists-Unconventional-Baboons/dp/0743202414

This guy followed a troop of Baboons around for years and learned a lot about them, he says that baboons are organised a lot like High School society, the popular and the unpopular , the bossy and the bossed.

  The only a few primates do not form groups, and these groups usually form a hirarchy.

Human nature seems to include this tendancy to either look for leadership , or to compete for the leadership.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Xhw3yjGvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 03, 2011, 02:46:24 am
But there might have been other arrangements that worked until then. After the Borg comes through you can look around and say "See, you can look for other ways to set up a society, but there isn't anything that works except the Borg." But there could be lots of societies that work for everything except beating the Borg.
That's true enough. And if this problem first cropped up during the Victorian era, when the British were colonizing the world, then one could say that this wasn't an argument against AnCap.

After all, for there to be a huge technological gap between societies would presumably be a rare occurrence.

But the problem of societies having to work for beating the Borg came up back in the days of ancient Egypt and Bablylon. That's what leads to the conclusion that however desirable a less-governed society may be, before we can opt for it, careful thought is required to make the world safe for this new, higher level of freedom.

I think a tendancy to government predates agriculture quite a lot.
Leadership with some power to initiate force does indeed predate agriculture. But leadership partly rested on respect, like that of Reggie King, and so it was kept within limits.

With the ancestors of humans, this was likely more true than with present-day chimpanzees. Our natural social organization is like that of the wolf. Not that of the chimpanzee, where the alpha male is the only one who can mate with the females when they're fertile. Or like that of many herbivores, where the alpha male has all the females in his harem.

No; like the wolf, each male has his own mate even though several males are together in a pack - the alpha male may have the prettiest one, or maybe have two (wolves don't do that, but humans do), but that's about as far as it goes.

It promotes survival for children to obey their parents. So there is a natural tendency to respect and follow leaders. But it's the larger stakes of warfare that followed agriculture that twisted this into the massive states running on brutal oppression that were the first civilizations. That's the process this book was describing.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 03, 2011, 07:00:18 am
Quote
careful thought is required to make the world safe for this new, higher level of freedom.

I heartily agree.

At least one researcher, Jaynes of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, suggests that being a self, a conscious individual, is a relatively recent development.  Hierarchies may work well enough for the bicameral psyches of our ape cousins, but they're not really satisfactory to anyone who has any sense of self, of autonomy.  Even our toddlers object to being commanded, yet, collectively, we are probably still on the steeper parts of the learning curve.  Some people seem to positively panic at the idea of not being led, of not having an 'alpha'.  Others wonder what the heck anyone would even want one for.  But we've both kinds here, now, and we've got to work this out somehow.

Sometimes I despair of communicating with an alien race, when communicating with my own conspecifics is so problematic.

Quote
Our natural social organization is like that of the wolf. Not that of the chimpanzee, where the alpha male is the only one who can mate with the females when they're fertile.

We're more like wolves?  Seems to me monogamy is a very recent meme.  Solomon and the King of Siam and even Little Big Man, dontcha know.

One other intriguing (if depressing) bit I once read noted a correlation between polygamy (and inter-sexual violence, alas) and sexual dimorphism:  species in which males and females differ significantly in size tend to be polygamous and violent (typically the larger sex against the smaller); species in which males and females are the same size tend to be monogamous and nonviolent.

Humans and most chimps show dimorphism.  Wolves and bonobos don't.

As for the chimp, the hierarchy means that the alpha male is the only one who's supposed to mate with the females when they're fertile, but females quite often sneak off in the bushes with beta males -- and some findings suggest that the alpha can be so stressed by maintaining his position that he suffers a drop in sperm count.  Both of these would help a troop retain a certain level of genetic diversity, if not all the progeny are sired by the same one.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: J Thomas on March 03, 2011, 10:50:21 am

Quote
Our natural social organization is like that of the wolf. Not that of the chimpanzee, where the alpha male is the only one who can mate with the females when they're fertile.

We're more like wolves?  Seems to me monogamy is a very recent meme.  Solomon and the King of Siam and even Little Big Man, dontcha know.

Lots of places, families tended to center around one husband and one wife. A sort of economic unit with division of labor. A man had to be pretty well off before a woman did better to be his second wife than to marry a poorer man.

Harems for kings perhaps provided security for surplus women. (If there were lots of women then the king wouldn't take the ones with the worst prospects, but he might take enough to reduce the imbalance.) And of course it gave somewhat-influential people a chance at the king's ear.

But monogamy? Gilgamish was supposed to have sex with every woman on her wedding night. STDs must have been uncommon then.

And Herodotus claimed that everywhere but Egypt and Greece, people had sex in the temples and not with their spouses. That also indicates a low incidence of STDs.

But the Torah describes such things happening. Abraham and Sarah did a repeated scam. They would travel to a new place, and Sarah would get taken into the king's harem. The harem would get an STD and the king would call his priests to find out what taboo he had violated. The priests would do arcane tests and announce that he had taken another man's wife. The king would find out that Abraham was also having sex with Sarah. "You said she was your sister!" "She is my sister. I was afraid to tell you she's also my wife because I was afraid you'd kill me and still take her." The king would then pay Abraham and Sarah a large sum of money etc to go away and never tell anybody. But they did tell, since it's in Torah. Later Jacob and Rachel did the same scam.

And Herodotus describes incidents where whole communities would get something that sounds like an STD. They would send gifts to an oracle who would tell them that they had sinned against somebody specific by doing something specific, and the oracle would assign them some difficult and expensive penance. By the time they completed the penance the disease would have run its course.

I think actual monogamy, as opposed to marriage with one husband and one wife, likely is pretty recent. It probably dates to the times that populations started getting large enough to maintain multiple dangerous STDs.

Quote
One other intriguing (if depressing) bit I once read noted a correlation between polygamy (and inter-sexual violence, alas) and sexual dimorphism:  species in which males and females differ significantly in size tend to be polygamous and violent (typically the larger sex against the smaller); species in which males and females are the same size tend to be monogamous and nonviolent.

Sure. If the largest males tend to get all the females, then males will get larger, even if they don't survive as well that way. Male elephant seals etc. A female elephant seal doesn't get a lot of choice -- she needs a beach, and she can take one that's protected by a giant male, or she can go to a beach that the remaining males are crowded on and maybe get killed while they fight over her and/or try to mass-rape her.

On the other hand if the largest males tend to survive wars, that would do it even without the polygamy. But if a lot of males don't survive wars, then why not do polygamy? The excess females have nothing better to do. And if the sort of men who survive wars tend to rough up their wives a bit the way they do foreign women after victories, that would be another side effect of their survival.

We can make up stories but it's hard to establish causation.

Quote
Humans and most chimps show dimorphism.  Wolves and bonobos don't.

Humans aren't as dimorphic as the animals that do the most of polygamy. We're maybe kind of moderate both in our anatomy and our behavior. Extremely variable.

Quote
As for the chimp, the hierarchy means that the alpha male is the only one who's supposed to mate with the females when they're fertile, but females quite often sneak off in the bushes with beta males -- and some findings suggest that the alpha can be so stressed by maintaining his position that he suffers a drop in sperm count.  Both of these would help a troop retain a certain level of genetic diversity, if not all the progeny are sired by the same one.

The way they used to tell that story, at least some of the time when a female went into heat all the males would line up and take turns with her. And consistent with that, chimpanzee males have great big testicles. The more sperm one male produces the better the chance that his outcompetes the others. Similarly, they have various seminal chemicals that tend to inhibit others' sperm but not their own. I also read that human males have some of those chemicals -- but not as much.

If one male is dominant enough, he could afford to have a lower sperm count.

These stories go every which way, depending partly on how you want to tell them. Some of it is science, and some of it is JustSo stories that make sense but that might be completely wrong. Further research will show up as the years go by.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 03, 2011, 01:24:53 pm
Quote
The excess females

Heh.  In terms of species survival, most males are "excess".

Quote
it's hard to establish causation.

I wasn't going to go anywhere near causation; merely noting the correlation.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 03, 2011, 04:19:30 pm
ARRRG, three days describing a roller coaster ride.  Really?  This is about as exciting as someone describing what they dreamed last night.  This is worse than waiting in line for a roller coaster.  What next Reggie and his girl eating a sandwich?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on March 03, 2011, 05:19:38 pm
Yes, but the Solar System's very wildest, very bestest sandwich ever!

This is what I believe is the origin of governments.

It has been observed that governments as such, beyond the best hunter leads the hunt because some has to and we're all hungry, started about the same time animals were domesticated. See the similarities in the procces, rewards, punnishment, safety at the cost of obediance. So horses and cattle were tamed, and so were the less powerful humans. To the king a peasant and a goat were not all that different.

That's one of the creepier things about the Bible to this heathen, all that sheep stuff.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on March 03, 2011, 05:59:31 pm
ARRRG, three days describing a roller coaster ride.

Three long days for those reading this on line.  Three short pages for the paying customers who buy the book (and provide money -- albeit fiat dollars with rapidly declining value -- to Sandy).

One gets what one pays for.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 03, 2011, 06:38:50 pm
ARRRG, three days describing a roller coaster ride.

Three long days for those reading this on line.  Three short pages for the paying customers who buy the book (and provide money -- albeit fiat dollars with rapidly declining value -- to Sandy).

It's like having an ice-based currency.  ::)

BTW, I wrote the thing to be scary, but I never had any idea how scary the artist could make it look. Kudos to Leila del Duca.

Obviously, there are readers who are knocked out by this arc. Others are merely put to sleep. That is why there are horse races; differences of opinion. Never fear, stuff you like will be there again before you know it. Until then, though, remember, patience is a virtue.  ;)
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 03, 2011, 08:22:06 pm
Pay for comic books?  You must be joking.  That's so 19907
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 05, 2011, 06:55:51 am
Whoops, I mean 1997.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 05, 2011, 11:25:46 am
Obviously, there are readers who are knocked out by this arc. Others are merely put to sleep.
Well, I'm not worried. Although I'm in the "put to sleep" group so far, I'm not complaining. I care about the characters, and I'd rather not see them having to spend their rejuv money to repair the severe injuries of one of them. (I'm thinking of a famous short story about a pocket watch and some expensive hair curlers...

... finally remembered the title: The Gift of the Magi, by O. Henry.)

And it's my fault anyways. Things like roller coasters don't appeal to me - being like Reggie in that respect - so I haven't tried to project myself in the story and vicariously experience the most exciting roller-coaster ride in the Solar System.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on March 05, 2011, 11:55:27 am
Obviously, there are readers who are knocked out by this arc. Others are merely put to sleep.
I'm in between.  I probably wouldn't enjoy the ride, but I enjoy the description and can imagine being on it (with an incentive similar to Reggie's).
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: terry_freeman on March 06, 2011, 08:53:19 am
I am a weird creature; I don't know why roller coasters are such a thrill, but I don't find them discomfiting either. This gives me the objectivity to enjoy watching Babbette and Reggie. This looks like a stellar ride, if you'll pardon my pun. 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 07, 2011, 11:15:37 pm
How many more weeks will this roller coaster ride last?  I am curious about whats going on back in Ceres but is satisfying my curiosity worth this interminable wait?  This side trip to Mars seems like some sort of punishment for the readers?

I am trying to think of another story where the author purposely delays the main story line in order to bore the readers to death with a side story of no relevance.  I can't think of one.

I suppose this roller coaster might eventually play some sort of role in the main story, like a gun appearing in the first act of a play, but I doubt it.

Wake me when its over.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on March 07, 2011, 11:20:21 pm
It ain't my story to tell, or Glenn's either.
Just enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 08, 2011, 06:31:27 am
I'm trying.  A little help from the author would be nice.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: mellyrn on March 08, 2011, 06:59:02 am
This very thread begins, "I left EFT two months ago because the old people love wasn't interesting, but the present arc is . . . "

And as someone else pointed out already, what is "days" online is only a few pages in hardcopy.

Over in Girl Genius, the past 24 hours of comic time have taken three years of MWF installments.

How old are you?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: sams on March 08, 2011, 07:09:30 am
This very thread begins, "I left EFT two months ago because the old people love wasn't interesting, but the present arc is . . . "

And as someone else pointed out already, what is "days" online is only a few pages in hardcopy.

Over in Girl Genius, the past 24 hours of comic time have taken three years of MWF installments.

How old are you?

22 years Old, full of dreams and immaturity  ;D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 08, 2011, 08:50:57 am
... what is "days" online is only a few pages in hardcopy.

This is correct. As I see it, readers who claimed to be bored by EFT (yet chatter on about it like magpies) have several viable options:

1. Don't follow EFT on line. Buy the damned book when it comes out.

2. Follow EFT on line, but only read it on a weekly or monthly basis.

3. Don't vote for EFT at Top Comics, the days you are disappointed. I pay some attention to this overall indicator of popularity.* Of course this only works if you vote for EFT on the days you are pleased. You are voting for EFT, aren't you?  :-*

4. Don't read EFT at all. Nobody has a gun to your head. If you are bored or think EFT is "propaganda," well, don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.  ;D

* I do pay attention to what most of you post on the Forum. However, the degree of credence I place in what Forum posters write is highly affected by my overall respect for the posters mental processes... or lack there of. By that standards, there are several posters I ignore entirely. I'm sure you know who they are.  :D
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 08, 2011, 01:51:08 pm
You are voting for EFT, aren't you?
I keep forgetting you're even on TWC. Since you don't use the usual blue EFT ad that I see on most of the other webcomics I visit that are on TWC, I keep failing to recognize your TWC ad.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 08, 2011, 04:08:56 pm
You are voting for EFT, aren't you?
I keep forgetting you're even on TWC. Since you don't use the usual blue EFT ad that I see on most of the other webcomics I visit that are on TWC, I keep failing to recognize your TWC ad.

But you know where it is now, right? Four down from the "Donate" button. <hint, hint>
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 08, 2011, 04:23:06 pm
I don't mean to hurt any one's feelimgs and I said from the beginning that I loved this arc.  But over a week of roller coaster descriptions is tedious.  I know how comics work and IMHO this divergence is poorly done.

The fact that it is free does no chage that.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on March 08, 2011, 05:04:10 pm
As I understand it, what Glenn and others mean, deep down is

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Actually it is a very long ride, one might even call it a 3 hour tour,
a three hour tour.

Just wait till next month gang, 20 straight strips of the love birds side by side in rejuvination comas, you will look back then at this incredibly exciting time.

Just kidding gang, or what I think I actually mean deep down is,
We get there when we get there.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: quadibloc on March 08, 2011, 07:27:31 pm
one might even call it a 3 hour tour,
Oh, my. Like Star Trek: Voyager.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on March 08, 2011, 07:35:56 pm
Too true. ;D
one might even call it a 3 hour tour,
Oh, my. Like Star Trek: Voyager.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 08, 2011, 09:50:23 pm
If I am in the minority in that I don't care for a week long comic about a roller coaster ride that probably has little or nothing to do with the main story line then so be it.

I admit I could be wrong but for now, again I ask, wake me when its over.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: spudit on March 09, 2011, 12:09:36 am
Aw
done
already
?
Let's
do
it
again
!


Now can somebody please wake up Glenn.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: wdg3rd on March 09, 2011, 11:30:18 am

Now can somebody please wake up Glenn.


Let's not.  Maybe he got bored enough to go away.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: GlennWatson on March 10, 2011, 05:01:29 pm
OK, here is what I bet happens.  Reggie changes his appearance into that of a young white man.  Babette changes into a young Black woman.  Both will be surprised.  Hilarity ensues. 
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Pavitra on March 10, 2011, 05:09:57 pm
They still have gendered restrooms?
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: Brugle on March 10, 2011, 06:32:05 pm
OK, here is what I bet happens.  Reggie changes his appearance into that of a young white man.  Babette changes into a young Black woman.  Both will be surprised.  Hilarity ensues.  
Back when the original Star Trek aired, I thought it was lame that some people made a big deal about the "interracial kiss".  As far as I could tell, SF literature (even non-libertarian SF literature) had nothing as silly as racism (at least within the same species).  Decades later, on the internet (which is more libertarian than society as a whole), skin color is considered important?  That would severely disappoint.  (Skin color changes without much surprise would be OK, but I'd want something more.)

Perhaps one or both will change their sex.  (That would be a "health choice", right?)  I wouldn't want to spring that surprise on a lover, but maybe Reggie or Babbette would.  Hilarity is possible.
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 10, 2011, 07:03:02 pm
Decades later, on the internet (which is more libertarian than society as a whole), skin color is considered important?

Gee, I hope not, but I think prejudice--of all sorts--will be with us for long into the future. When I originally wrote the short story, WORLD CERES, I guess I personally visualized Reggie as a pale English white guy. However, there was no particular reason, other than the necessity to have some character in mind when I wrote. Scott suggested we make Reggie black. I thought that might be cool, so I agreed. Still, race was not really an issue even then. He's just a guy who happens to be black. I assumed that wouldn't be a problem for most people in the Belt, so that was that.

I have been giving some thought to a story that involves a whites-only bar, restaurant, club or the like, but ditto for an all black, all Lithuanian or all Hawaiian counterpart. I don't much care either way when someone wishes to discriminate on any damned basis they choose. I'll still hang with whomever I want. As one of my girlfriends, who is black, said, "That's their problem."
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: wdg3rd on March 10, 2011, 09:04:35 pm

I have been giving some thought to a story that involves a whites-only bar, restaurant, club or the like, but ditto for an all black, all Lithuanian or all Hawaiian counterpart. I don't much care either way when someone wishes to discriminate on any damned basis they choose. I'll still hang with whomever I want. As one of my girlfriends, who is black, said, "That's their problem."


Yup.  Owner of a venue who wants to cut his profits by restricting custom, well, it's his choice, his place and his (less) money.  Not a mistake I plan to make.  Though I won't go out of my way to attract "public servants".
Title: Re: The New arc is Awesome :-)
Post by: SandySandfort on March 10, 2011, 10:47:12 pm
Yup.  Owner of a venue who wants to cut his profits by restricting custom, well, it's his choice, his place and his (less) money.  Not a mistake I plan to make.  Though I won't go out of my way to attract "public servants".

You know, there is a restaurant near an airport (forgot where) that will not serve TSA goons. No reason you shouldn't discriminate against the bad guys if you feel like it. It's not even against the law, since cops, TSA, FBI, BATF, etc. are not protected categories. Fuk 'em. Better yet, make 'em check their guns at the door.