- well, other than the fact that I can only create a new poll, not a new topic, but okay.

Sure
Why not?
terry_freeman on June 17, 2010, 06:49:01 am
The largest class of organized criminals is the State itself. I do view the State as fundamentally immoral. The reason I do not hope for immediate abolition is that too many people would simply create a new version.

That's why I advocate a slower process: people taking responsibility for matters such as self-defense, education, financial safety nets. Politicians, in response to changing public opinion, will back off. People will resist the more egregious acts of theft and aggression by the State, in the same manner that we resist the actions of other criminals.

Resistance takes many forms. Note the low levels of compliance with the census snoops, for example; the rising number of home schoolers; the number of people who have armed themselves, regardless of whether they have permission from the organized criminals who call themselves the Government. Consider the many videos of those organized criminals in action. The veneer is being chipped away.
 



Rocketman on June 17, 2010, 10:51:39 am
...The veneer is being chipped away.
True, as far as it goes but you have to remember that they can see this as well and are determined to stop it.  Such measures include controlling the internet.  Putting laws in place that will prevent small organizations from speaking out against big government.  The California ballot law recently passed that will prevent 3rd parties from having any chance at the polls and trying to stomp on Fox news because they are starting to put pro libertarian people like Glen Beck, Judge Andrew Napolatono and John Stossel on.  This fight is not over by a long shot.

dough560 on June 18, 2010, 01:27:54 am
Not so much a fight at this point, but spreading ideas and an ideal.  Political consequences....  Here's to a quiet revolution, such as we experienced over the last hundred years.  However I don't expect ours to take as long, and be more effective.

Two factors we have in our favor;  1.  Most people want to be left alone.  2. The average person is beginning to understand how the TransProgs are interfering with their lives.

While we have internet freedom, information spreads in a nonlinear fashion.  Not linearly, as it did when the big three controlled the information flow.

terry_freeman on June 18, 2010, 07:54:38 am
The internet is a powerful tool, but it is not the only tool. The former USSR collapsed due in no small part to "samizdat" - newsletters and cassette tapes passed hand-to-hand. In today's world, USB flash drives could easily travel even if the internet were shut down.

Even China is not able to completely censor the internet, and they have certainly tried; it is estimated that 2-5% of Chinese know how to "climb the wall" of censorship, and another 20% know and rely upon someone with those skills.

The idea of liberty has already become pandemic; it is being passed hand to hand, people in all walks of life are seeking to implement it directly. The political route to freedom was, if anything, a distraction - I speak as one who was a big-L Libertarian for over a decade. The State will wither away when we re-develop the institutions, customs, and habits needed to supplant the State.
 

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 01:04:23 pm
I didn't realize I would have to spell out "short life expectancy" in such detail, but let's try it this way: Norman tries to rape a girl. Girl shoots Norman. Norman dies. If it does not happen with girl #1, it happens with girl #2 or girl #3. This is a consequence of living in a society where people take responsibility for defending themselves and the people they care about.

People like Norman succeed when they monopolize the supply of violence. This is a fundamental difference between anarchy and statism; if you don't understand it, stop, slow down, and think it through. In a statist society, the State monopolizes the use of violence, and people like Norman exploit that monopoly. In an anarchy, the use of violence ( but not violence itself ) is widely distributed. Girls - and boys - are armed and able to defend themselves against grave bodily harm, including rape.

If you don't see that, you're not thinking.
"monopolizing the the use of violence" is a rather tall order. Strictly speaking, it means that the aggressor has somehow managed to prevent anyone else from doing any violence whatever.
I'm going to assume that what you mean is, instead, that such aggressors rely upon an asymmetrical distribution of force; that is to say, they prey upon those they consider weaker than they.
In the given example, Norman has an entire infrastructure of force to use to enforce his will upon these young women. However, his use of this infrastructure seems to be predicated on his ability to keep his activities secret from his superiors (I stipulate that this last may be unusually easy if his superiors are not located on the Moon.)
In an anarchist society, such a person might still rise to the leadership of a gang or even such a thing as a "corporation", controlling vast assets outside the ken of the society within which it exists. The imbalance of power would be identical in such a case, and Norman might maintain his depredations as long as he can maintain secrecy from those who would stop him.
My objection to Norman's "short life span" initially was that I thought my interlocutor had assumed that Norman was so stupid that he would be unable to choose his victims according to the same basic criteria that today's inner-city muggers use. Upon further reading, I have gathered that this was not what was suggested. I apologize for the misapprehension.

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 01:11:09 pm
konehead and others with the same mind set.  Honest ignorance and open mind are always welcome.

An excellent way to develop libertarian views, is to spend a few years picking up the pieces, after the powers that be, deny individuals efficient means of self-defense.  It doesn't take long to realize the mess you're cleaning up, didn't have to happen and wouldn't have happened if the "Norman" hadn't been confident the intended victim is essentially helpless.   

Thought provoking reading material:  Heinlein, Norton and L. Niel Smith.  They've asked the question:  What If, as it applies to libertarian thought.  Why suggest materials based in science-fiction?  That's where views of the unborn society appear.  The society we're discussing is gestating.  It's arrival will occur in it's own time.  Said society will result from a desire for individual freedom and a rejection of TransProg ideals.

If you're not sure about ethics of self-defense I suggest Massad Ayoob's "The Truth About Self-Defense" and "In Gravest Extreme".  Review of actual cases:  "The Ayoob Files" and "Thank God I had A Gun".  Paxton Quigley's, "Armed and Female",  would be a good start.

If you don't already understand the difference and definitions of "Community", "Family", "Society", and "State", and "Statist".  Get a dictionary and a life..  You may get your jollies posing improbable scenarios.  So far you've just been another "individual" out to prove your superiority and the superiority of your beliefs.  Boring.

In the postulated society we are discussing, your beliefs and the probable rejection of same by this society's population and your probable reaction would have a predictable result.

You have been responsible enough to make your "Final Arrangements".  Haven't You?

Are you threatening me? If so, why?
What assertions have I made in this thread that bother you? I have mostly only asked questions, and attempted to clarify things I did not at first understand.
I have many dictionaries. Ofttimes they differ in specific definitions. I have a scientific background, so definitions are important. I am not and have not been "out to prove" anything. What makes you say so?

I have read all of Robert A. Heinlein's published works. Norton is a fairly common name, so I don't know to which author you refer. As for the others, I lost interest as soon as you started coming across as Internet Tough Guy and patronizing me as though you were my intellectual superior. I will take a certain amount of that from Mr Sandfort since he has at least published something. I see no reason to take it from you.

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 01:55:54 pm


 I advocate a slower process: people taking responsibility for matters such as self-defense, education, financial safety nets. Politicians, in response to changing public opinion, will back off. People will resist the more egregious acts of theft and aggression by the State, in the same manner that we resist the actions of other criminals.


I fully endorse this statement.
I believe that personal responsibility is the only way in which an anarchic society can work; I spend a great deal of my time working with those who are making the tools which will give power to individuals *while requiring them to understand the problem domain*. It's very important to me that people use certain tools (such as firearms, or machine tools, or packet-switched networks) only and always with an understanding of what they are doing.
In my opinion, a working knowledge of such tools constitutes adulthood. Only those who understand the use of such tools should be considered adults.
Again, this is my opinion. I don't expect my opinion to control or to influence others. I only ask that folks consider such things on their own merit.

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 02:01:29 pm
...The veneer is being chipped away.
True, as far as it goes but you have to remember that they can see this as well and are determined to stop it.  Such measures include controlling the internet.  Putting laws in place that will prevent small organizations from speaking out against big government.  The California ballot law recently passed that will prevent 3rd parties from having any chance at the polls and trying to stomp on Fox news because they are starting to put pro libertarian people like Glen Beck, Judge Andrew Napolatono and John Stossel on.  This fight is not over by a long shot.

As far as the control of the Internet is concerned, the best tool I have found for opposing the gatekeepers is the various Personal Telco Projects (there are many of these centered round various municipal areas- the name I have used comes from Portland, OR).
These are community - owned, decentralized wireless mesh networks. Some connect to the wired Internet (which is fundamentally subject to gate-keeping due to its wired nature) and some do not. All 802.11x based networks are capable of interoperability, so we need not depend on the existing Internet to connect them.

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 02:20:28 pm


One would hope that the male individual in question would have soul enough to not accept the womans offer and would attempt first to feed her, get her healthy and assist her in becoming independent. If she has a desire to accept money for sex the man in question would take a percentage of her earnings over a set period of time to recoup his investment. That's anarcho-capitalism.

Quote
The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised -- which doesn't change that something horrible and morally repugnant just took place. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

* I apologize if I offend anyone with this example. I'm posing a counter-example to the comic's storyline at the time of this writing, which is in essence about an attempted rape.
[quote\]

The difference is that Norman was threatening both Robin and the blond girl with "horrible things" if they didn't put out. If he tried that on Ceres the girls could just leave and let it be known that Norman's a dangerous pervert. All bets were off when Robin said "NO" and he threatened to have her "spaced" if she injured him. The Moon being the Harsh Mistress she is, Norman got what he deserved.

Anarchy is not government. Centuries of social canalization has left you with the deep mindset of having to be told what to do and what not to do. In an anarchy all you really need is a simple understanding of what's right or wrong. Most of us know right from wrong and the concept of what is fair or unfair at about 6 years of age. A truly free individual knows this without question.

This is an excellent answer, as long as the lady involved is not so desperate (i.e., dying of thirst or extreme hunger or (somehow) oxygen deprivation) as to be effectively "forced" to take the first offer that comes along. (Sure a drowning woman will grasp any straw!)
As you point out, an anarcho-capitalist male (I would submit that this is true of *any* anarchist, 'left' or 'right', male or female, who took sufficient thought to determine their best interest) would nurture the affected person (yes, it's a lady in the example, but I think it would be valid regardless of gender) until such person  was able to return value back into the system.
This is because I think that a functional anarch must necessarily act from not only its own self interest (though this must not be neglected) but the interest of its external support system, whether this be a society or a system of machinery.
In the case of the EFT storyline, value is available to those who would pay for the young woman's meal in the form of the story she tells. It need not be true, just so long as it's worth the price of a meal to them. If her true story is interesting, then it is in her interest to tell the truth. If her story is interesting, truthful, and pitiful, then it may well be worth the efforts of many skilled people to help it to a satisfactory conclusion- as long as no one person has to work too hard to effect it.
This last ignores the possible future productivity of the young lady in question to the community involved, which is essentially a gamble, albeit an unusually transparent one with unusually favorable odds.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 03:10:45 pm by koanhead »

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 02:27:55 pm
Pretty good legal analysis. My guess, though, is that you are not a lawyer... yet. Are you a law student, a well-read layman or a fallen-away lawyer? My sense of it is that you are not a practicing lawyer.

I'm a Software Engineer by trade, and a Philosopher by avocation; I have no formal legal training.  I have considered pursuing it, but looking at all the nonsense that in US Jurisprudence, I quickly realized that it would frustrate me far too much. I would also object at having to swear allegiance to a government court.

I have been mistaken for a lawyer before, and in any situation where it is important, I prepend a disclaimer.  I didn't do so here since we aren't talking about any concrete legal system.

I am guessing, on no evidence, that you also have no formal training as a Philosopher.
Fortunately, I think that no such formal training is available any more. What could be worse for the development of a Philosopher than formal training in that "field"?
I am curious, and if you can tell us, I would like to know which software you have made happen. I understand that you may be restrained by certain legal agreements from divulging this. I do not wish to make any trouble for you in order to satisfy my curiosity.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 18, 2010, 03:07:18 pm
I'm a [...] Philosopher by avocation [...]

I am guessing, on no evidence, that you also have no formal training as a Philosopher.
Fortunately, I think that no such formal training is available any more. What could be worse for the development of a Philosopher than formal training in that "field"?

I have a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics; that could certainly be considered formal training in Philosophy (I've found very few (published) Philosophers without a background in Mathematics (and possess what is sometimes referred to as "Mathematical maturity") whose arguments could not easily be punctured.

Beyond that, I am pretty much self-generated.  I have always tended to avoid reading a given Philosopher's work (other than perhaps to pick up some terminology) until I have addressed the topic in question first and independently.  Then I can approach the work as an equal, not as a follower.  This leads to "doing Philosophy" as opposed to "studying Philosophy".  I suspect that is what you are picking up.

Quote
I am curious, and if you can tell us, I would like to know which software you have made happen. I understand that you may be restrained by certain legal agreements from divulging this. I do not wish to make any trouble for you in order to satisfy my curiosity.

Most of the software I have worked on few have ever heard of.  It's software used mostly to build other software; libraries, frameworks, DBMS software, and a bit of OS work.  The only work that folks might have heard of is DataBlitz, a DBMS that runs (almost) entirely in memory (the exception is that redo logs and checkpoints must be written to disk to ensure persistence), which was based on the Dali DBMS research prototype; both were done at Bell Labs back in the '90's.

koanhead on June 18, 2010, 03:20:41 pm
I'm a [...] Philosopher by avocation [...]

I am guessing, on no evidence, that you also have no formal training as a Philosopher.
Fortunately, I think that no such formal training is available any more. What could be worse for the development of a Philosopher than formal training in that "field"?

I have a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics; that could certainly be considered formal training in Philosophy (I've found very few (published) Philosophers without a background in Mathematics (and possess what is sometimes referred to as "Mathematical maturity") whose arguments could not easily be punctured.
I can think of a great many so-called philosophers off the top of my head with little or no mathematical background.
I will not mention them because I have little or no interest in philosophical arguments which are not grounded in mathematical logic *at minimum*.
[/quote]

Beyond that, I am pretty much self-generated.  I have always tended to avoid reading a given Philosopher's work (other than perhaps to pick up some terminology) until I have addressed the topic in question first and independently.  Then I can approach the work as an equal, not as a follower.  This leads to "doing Philosophy" as opposed to "studying Philosophy".  I suspect that is what you are picking up.
[/quote]

Yes, although I think I failed to express myself adequately.
Philosophy, in my opinion, needs must be explored, and cannot truly be taught.

Quote
I am curious, and if you can tell us, I would like to know which software you have made happen. I understand that you may be restrained by certain legal agreements from divulging this. I do not wish to make any trouble for you in order to satisfy my curiosity.
Quote
Most of the software I have worked on few have ever heard of.  It's software used mostly to build other software; libraries, frameworks, DBMS software, and a bit of OS work.  The only work that folks might have heard of is DataBlitz, a DBMS that runs (almost) entirely in memory (the exception is that redo logs and checkpoints must be written to disk to ensure persistence), which was based on the Dali DBMS research prototype; both were done at Bell Labs back in the '90's.
Thanks- I have heard of DataBlitz, but have not had opportunity to look into it until now. It sounds interesting, and you have given me something to check out tomorrow when work is slow.

Brugle on June 18, 2010, 05:46:34 pm
...
People like Norman succeed when they monopolize the supply of violence. ...
"monopolizing the the use of violence" is a rather tall order. Strictly speaking, it means that the aggressor has somehow managed to prevent anyone else from doing any violence whatever.
I'm going to assume that what you mean is, instead, that such aggressors rely upon an asymmetrical distribution of force; that is to say, they prey upon those they consider weaker than they.
While I can't speak for terry_freeman, I don't think that's right.

What I (and I think most of us here) object to is aggressive violence (including threats of aggressive violence).  Defensive violence is morally OK, although sometimes not wise.  A state is an institution that is generally considered to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggressive violence.  For example, where I live, a government agent saying "give me $2000 in taxes or I will lock you in a cage or kill you" might be considered legitimate, but someone who is not a government agent saying "give me $2000 protection money or I will lock you in a cage or kill you" would not be considered legitimate.  Some of us do not consider any use of aggressive violence to be legitimate, but we are greatly outnumbered.

In many places, government claims to monopolize the legitimate use of all violence (including defensive violence), as terry_freeman indicated.  But since forbidding the use of defensive violence is aggressive violence (at least for those who consider self-defense to be a right), that's just another example of state behavior.

In the given example, Norman has an entire infrastructure of force to use to enforce his will upon these young women. However, his use of this infrastructure seems to be predicated on his ability to keep his activities secret from his superiors (I stipulate that this last may be unusually easy if his superiors are not located on the Moon.)
While that might be true, I don't see any reason to assume that it is.  It may be that his superiors know about and encourage that sort of behavior so they can profit from it in some way.  If I had to, I'd guess something in between: Norman's superiors know (or suspect) and disapprove, but as long as it isn't officially brought to their attention they tolerate it.  Of course, it doesn't make any difference to the story (unless there are other people involved that we don't know about).

In an anarchist society, such a person might still rise to the leadership of a gang or even such a thing as a "corporation", controlling vast assets outside the ken of the society within which it exists. The imbalance of power would be identical in such a case, and Norman might maintain his depredations as long as he can maintain secrecy from those who would stop him.
Sure it is possible, but very unlikely.  In an anarchist society, any aggressive violence immediately causes the perpetrator to be considered a criminal.  "I was following orders" is not an excuse; "He gave me lip" is not an excuse; "I wear a funny hat and a badge" is not an excuse.  For most people, the decision to become a criminal would be difficult.

If enough people join a criminal gang, any society (including an anarchy) will have problems.  However, anarchy has the advantage that calling a criminal gang "the state" won't make its criminality easier--if the people are educated it would probably make its criminality more difficult.

quadibloc on June 18, 2010, 07:10:00 pm
"monopolizing the the use of violence" is a rather tall order. Strictly speaking, it means that the aggressor has somehow managed to prevent anyone else from doing any violence whatever.
The way I understand what was said in that context was simply this: in a society where only police and soldiers can legally own guns, criminals who have illegal guns have a great amount of power to threaten and intimidate normal law-abiding citizens.

So, where people aren't used to defending themselves, and might face serious criminal charges if they attempt to defend themselves, and are denied the means of defending themselves - criminals who have no particular connection to the state still have an advantage they can exploit.

terry_freeman on June 18, 2010, 10:13:12 pm
Today's inner-city muggers - in places such as Chicago and Los Angeles - can safely assume that their intended victims are unarmed. This is not true in, for example, Florida, which experienced a sharp drop in rapes after women were encouraged to train in the use of firearms to defend themselves.

In an anarchistic society such as Ceres, most gals would be packing heat. The story line posits Norman where - on the streets? In a factory? No - in a prison - an environment devised by the global government, where the victims, AKA prisoners, are disarmed.

If you think that such an artificial environment, created by the government, is closer to an anarchic society than the streets of Florida, where many would-be rapists have learned to leave women alone, you are going to have to enlighten me as to why this is so. It doesn't get any more asymmetrical than "Put all your belongings in this box, including any weapons" and "if you in any way harm one of our Most Important and Sacred Guards and Wardens, you will be punished, and they will not."
 


 

anything