SandySandfort on March 04, 2011, 08:32:00 pm
Voluntaryism on the Western Frontier

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3803

spudit on March 04, 2011, 09:23:03 pm
Thanks,

You're preachin to the choir Rev S. but thanks, I saved the site. Lotsa good stuff there. Maybe, most of us, don't need adult supervision after all.

So, then,  Paint Your Wagon was a documentery? Historically correct anyway.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on March 04, 2011, 09:46:39 pm
This confirms what I have tried to explain before, on a small scale anarchistic lack of government control is an everyday thing. Imagine the 1984 world where it wasn't.

Look at all the small scale groups we form, garden clubs, PTAs, neighborhood watches, all on our own. I remember watching the Gay Pride parade down Colfax in Denver marveling at how unorganized the whole thing was. Surely they had a permit but that's it, the scale and the feel was way different from the government sponsored parades.

For that matter look at the private, just plain folks, responding to the Christchurch quake, strangers self organizing to dig people out, others loading bleeding strangers into their private cars. We seem to be hardwired for it.

It's the jump to national scale that blows so many minds. Impeded by the government at every level, I'm sure.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Plane on March 04, 2011, 09:56:20 pm
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/woolley.html


Ever hear of the San Francisco vigalance and their Bell?

San Francisco was exceptional in that it was a large community , most of the places that ran with little or no government were small wern't they?

I guess this idea will never fire the Public Imagination because noone will ever finance a movie titled "The Mild Mild West".

When there was statehood offered to a territory, was it ever resisted?

mellyrn on March 05, 2011, 07:06:40 am
Quote
I guess this idea will never fire the Public Imagination because noone will ever finance a movie titled "The Mild Mild West".

just sprayed coffee all over the monitor. . .



I wonder if anarchy hasn't scaled up because, as a community gets larger, the number of psychopaths goes up and, sooner or later, one of them is ambitious?  Maybe we need more consciousness of psychopathy, in addition to more awareness that, hey, we mostly are all adults here.

quadibloc on March 05, 2011, 11:20:34 am
I wonder if anarchy hasn't scaled up
This brings an important point to mind.

Anarchy shouldn't need to scale. In an anarchist society, each town or village should be able to make its own decisions - and, so, if one small town has someone who makes a serious nuisance of themselves, they're likely to hang him, but that isn't going to offend the next town over which will decide they have to invade it to put a stop to such primitive behavior.

If the Taliban and coalition forces weren't fighting in Afghanistan, and if the Afghans weren't quite so socially conservative that they haven't ruled out initiating force to impose some of their traditions (even if to a lesser extent than the Taliban did)... that would be anarchy - villages handle their own problems.

Today's microprocessors, though, require fabs costing many billions of dollars to make them, since their cost increased with each new process generation. (That ought to slow down Moore's law pretty soon; Intel doesn't have enough of a market to spend an amount of money equal to the entire U.S. GDP.) So you have a choice - maintain modern technology, or don't guarantee that large businesses can guarantee the safety of their salesmen through the whole lower 48 and count on fairly uniform contract law, and so on.

Of course, compared to other countries, the U.S. is already highly diverse, since the individual states do make most of their own laws.

Right now, though, there is a big chunk of people in the U.S. who are convinced that if we let towns and villages and neighborhoods deal with serious crime in their own way, hanging men for committing rape - reasonable in itself - would be used against black people the same way the blasphemy laws in Pakistan are used against its Christian minority.

terry_freeman on March 06, 2011, 08:58:56 am
The Mild Mild West wasn't all farms and cowpoke towns. They had big thriving cities, so the notion that "anarchy only works in itty bitty villages" is nothing but horsepucky.

Reload and recalibrate, quadibloc, you're obviously missing your targets by a country mile.

mellyrn on March 06, 2011, 07:03:15 pm
Quote
Right now, though, there is a big chunk of people in the U.S. who are convinced that if we let towns and villages and neighborhoods deal with serious crime in their own way, hanging men for committing rape - reasonable in itself - would be used against black people . . .

. . . the way towns and villages in New England used to hang people for being the wrong sort of Christian.

But they stopped.  All on their own, without a "movement" about it, or a federal law from On High telling them to. 

Perhaps finding out why they stopped without being told, would be useful.

spudit on March 07, 2011, 12:00:06 am
Thats the real bitch about vigilantes in the popular mind, they tend to get lumped in with the KKK and the lynch mob, Take the execution of Harris, he had it coming but to the typical UW serf, wasn't he lynched with a gun? No government had him whacked, unauthorized civilian killing, by their laws, is murder.

Here's a problem with capital punishment, if the government can take your life, do they actually "own" it all along?

caution, rehetorical question, no response is required.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

mellyrn on March 07, 2011, 06:14:09 am
I was playing hooky when my class got the anti-vigilante inoculation.  The only time I can honestly object to a vigilante is when he's got the wrong guy.  Which error the State also makes, apparently 5-10% of the time.  I have no stats on vigilante error rates.

A little early education, "When the wrong person is imprisoned for a crime, the right person is still at large", should help moderate the rush to "justice" in either case.

J Thomas on March 07, 2011, 06:49:20 am
I was playing hooky when my class got the anti-vigilante inoculation.  The only time I can honestly object to a vigilante is when he's got the wrong guy.  Which error the State also makes, apparently 5-10% of the time.  I have no stats on vigilante error rates.

It's hard to get good data about this, in either case. If we truly knew who did it, we could get the right criminal for sure. Very often the law doesn't find anybody to prosecute, and every often lynch mobs don't lynch anybody. That's the other side of it, the times they know that they don't know who did it, or they know but it's somebody untouchable. When a judge thinks he knows, but later he or another judge thinks different, then probably at least one of them was wrong. Objective things like DNA evidence can say something definitively, but only when DNA matters to the crime.

When it seems open-and-shut then common sense says it's true and not some elaborate frame-up. But sometimes it is. When the evidence is clear to the police, it's more likely the police lied about it than somebody else did some careful frame-up, but what's the chance in either case? Common sense says to just believe the evidence.

Quote
A little early education, "When the wrong person is imprisoned for a crime, the right person is still at large", should help moderate the rush to "justice" in either case.

Not in the vigilante case. If one group of vigilantes wrongly kills somebody for a crime he didn't do, that does nothing to stop the same or another group of vigilantes from killing somebody else for the same crime.

And we usually think that punishing people for crimes is about punishing the particular person who did the particular crime, but maybe the actual purpose is to improve society. In that case it may do just as much good to punish somebody that society wants to punish. If a lynch mob kills the wrong man, but it kills somebody who isn't welcome in the community, they have accomplished something. Maybe they'll get the right man later.  I can't say I approve of this approach, but it could be more effective than waiting for definitive evidence.

terry_freeman on March 07, 2011, 09:18:07 am
I have some advice. Read the research, including the not-so-wild-west paper.

Then post.

Doing it the other way around leads to having to retract stupid theories which have already been refuted.

Regarding vigilante committees: in Real Life, they arose when needed, were often led by people who had established good reputations, and were disbanded when "the people" objected. Since they were voluntary forms of organization and the "leaders" were not considered to be miraculously elected to godlike status, they tended to do more good than damage.

Hence, observers reported that the "mild mild west" was at least as safe as the government-heavy cities back East. However, folks back East, who had a vested interest in extending their power, carped about the "strange" customs in the West.

What else is new?

Today, government-fed schoolmarms carp about the "lack of socialization" among home-schooled kids. Hoplophobes claim that private citizens with guns are a terrible danger to themselves and others.

True story: just last night, I was asked "But do your kids do anything about their children's social development?"

To which I replied with a heavy dose of sarcasm "Yes, every third Tuesday, they unlock the chains and let my grandkids out of the closet to get some sun and talk to other kids."

Harumph!

macsnafu on March 07, 2011, 09:25:24 am

Today, government-fed schoolmarms carp about the "lack of socialization" among home-schooled kids. Hoplophobes claim that private citizens with guns are a terrible danger to themselves and others.

They bring up the "socialization" argument because they've already lost the quality education argument. It's a case of grasping for straws.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

J Thomas on March 07, 2011, 10:24:42 am

Today, government-fed schoolmarms carp about the "lack of socialization" among home-schooled kids. Hoplophobes claim that private citizens with guns are a terrible danger to themselves and others.

They bring up the "socialization" argument because they've already lost the quality education argument. It's a case of grasping for straws.

A few weeks ago I asked my oldest daughter if she'd like to be homeschooled, since she gave the impression she was bored in school a lot and she was objecting to doing a lot of the boring homework. She'd always refused before because she wanted to be with her friends, and she rejected the magnet school for the same reason.

"No, daddy! I'm not stupid!"
"Stupid? Of course not. What does that have to do with it?"
"All the kids say it's the stupidest kids who have to be homeschooled."
"Well, it doesn't have to be that way."
"If I was homeschooled all my friends would think I was stupid."

I hadn't noticed that particular line before.

spudit on March 07, 2011, 10:38:50 am
Deepness ahead, sorta

Are we not all, ultimately home schooled?

Sandy's post at the beginning of this topic was a history lesson, surely the public schools could have spent several days on it, if allowed. Those of us who read it learned something. Those of us at home and not reading this on the boss' dime, you know who you are, got schooled at home.

Teach a kid the 3 Rs and critical thinking and right there can begin a lifetime of homeschooling. Wet chemistry, machine shop and a few others aside, given a book, enough math and a functioning brain, anything can be learned.

Or as someone wiser than me once said,

"Teach a man to start a fire and he'll be warm all night,
set him on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life"

Maybe I shoulda stuck with the fishing one?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 11:25:15 am by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

 

anything