Holt on April 24, 2011, 06:44:03 pm
Ya know you keep on saying your brand of anarchy is better and I'll keep asking the same old question.
Why hasn't it ever worked then?

Something mighty close to anarchy worked fine in the old west, in Saga period iceland, and in California until 1910 or thereabouts.  The Stanford who founded Stanford university was apt to himself judge and hang evildoers.  As late as the 1930s bankers in the west would themselves hunt down and kill bank robbers.  The "Gunsmoke" series depicts a marshal doing the enforcing, but this is anachronistic.  "Bonanza", where the Cartwrights (landowners) do the enforcing, is historically more accurate.

Yes but note something.

They all fell apart or were absorbed or stopped. There was an anarchist microstate in Denmark. Really it was just a pretense for growing and selling weed but the authorities were quite happy to let them be for a while before politely asking if they could stop selling weed on the street to blatantly. Didn't even ask them to stop. The anarchists were dickish about and covered their stalls with camo netting. Last few years Danish government said "Right fuck this. Bringing you back into Denmark."

Anarchy has never survived. If it is as awesome as you claim then why not?

Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 07:04:25 pm
In an anarchic society, people without income, assets, or reputation, are likely to receive a lesser level of protection.

Is anybody else taking note of this correspondent's arguably neurotic fixation on "income" to the detriment of any appreciation of an individual's capabilities?  

Also, most people will be inclined to view that a parent punishing his child is probably doing it for the child's own good, and are likely to be disinclined to protect a child against his own parents.

Protection, the application of organized force, will be mediated through the adult income earning members of the family, and to the extent that force is applied by the individuals directly concerned, the male members of the family, thus whatever you believe should be the case, an anarchic society is likely to have greater parental and patriarchal authority than a state society, hence will tend to be socially conservative in family matters, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be.

There is in this magnificently illogical leap to an unsupported conclusion the presumption that "parental and patriarchal authority" would be impaired by no counterforce in an anarchocapitalist (AnCap) society, and that's not only not necessarily so but also vanishingly unlikely.  

Indeed, in a social milieu where individual autonomy - not only one's own but also that of others - is highly valued, the forcible exercise of "parental and patriarchal authority" over the voiced objections of any human being (no matter what that person's age or other condition might be) is particularly likely to evoke defensive intervention by others.  

One of the social effects of the widespread carriage of personal weaponry which really disquiets authoritarians is that the voluntary individual choice to acquire, train with, and use instruments of violent force necessarily engages in the person making that choice a greater sense of personal responsibility to protect not only his/her own rights but also the rights of others. Certainly greater than would otherwise be the case.

The American Heart Association counts on that "preparedness" factor when encouraging the most widespread possible participation in their basic life support (BLS or "cardiopulmonary resuscitation) courses. It was discovered early on that even if BLS protocols are not themselves guarantees of effective rescue, people who had even once in the past been BLS certified are far less likely to freeze up in the presence of an acute cardiopulmonary emergency.  They may not act to perfect standards of performance, but they will act in response, and that beats hell out of standing there with one's thumbs up one's ass.  

People conscious of their personal ability to intervene with real effect in situations requiring moral judgement tend reliably to acknowledge and act upon what they perceive to be their responsibility to see that moral conduct prevails within the scope of their capabilities.  It's the "Good Samaritan" imperative in Western culture.  Anything less is dishonorable, contemptible.

No welfare payments for single mums, no free childminding and brainwashing services, weak limits on patriarchal use of force, therefore socially conservative.  Fathers are likely to use violence to ensure that their daughters and those courting their daughters behave in a manner likely to ensure support for their grandchildren.  Such violence is likely to be socially acceptable because widely applied, and because no one with means to prevent it has any individual interest to prevent it.

In an anarchic society, whatever use of force is common and normal and people generally get away with it becomes legal, or not illegal, and whatever acts are apt to result in violence being successfully used against one, become illegal.  Patriarchy, therefore, is apt to be legal.  Whatever laws should be in theory, in practice they are apt to be biased in favor of those doing the enforcing.

Were it not for the fact that statists and other cement-heads accept such senseless contrafactual surmises as if they were in any way congruent with objective reality, I'd take this non sequitur substitute for reasoned argument as nothing more than a manifest of incompetence.  As it is, to speak of "Such violence" as ever being considered "socially acceptable because widely applied" in the kind of community depicted on Ceres in this graphic novel has got to involve either the method of the "big lie" or evidence of a debilitating psychiatric disorder.

Which is kinder and more courteous?  To assume that sam is willfully and with malice aforethought pushing a duplicitous presentation of the writers' and artists' work thus far provided in EFT, or that he's suffering through no fault of his own from a condition which appears to have rendered him non compos mentis?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 07:15:27 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 24, 2011, 07:48:06 pm
Something mighty close to anarchy worked fine in the old west, in Saga period iceland, and in California until 1910 or thereabouts.  The Stanford who founded Stanford university was apt to himself judge and hang evildoers.  As late as the 1930s bankers in the west would themselves hunt down and kill bank robbers.  The "Gunsmoke" series depicts a marshal doing the enforcing, but this is anachronistic.  The "Bonanza" series, which depicts the Cartwrights (landowners) doing the enforcing, is historically more accurate.

They all fell apart or were absorbed or stopped.

Saga period iceland lasted about four hundred years, which is a lot longer than the American Republic looks like it will last.

Every political system falls apart eventually, and/or is conquered or some such, but of all the political systems that have been tried, it is democracy, not anarchy, that is notorious for its brevity.  In a democracy, once the masses discover they can vote themselves rich, everything falls apart.  And if it does not immediately fall apart, the politicians import cheaper votes.

The Ivory Coast, where the banks are closed, the ports are closed, and the cocoa crop is rotting in untended fields, is the future of democracy.  The city of Detroit is the future of democracy.  Democracy collapses faster when you have blacks and/or Muslims voting, but Liverpool is starting to look a lot like Detroit.  In Detroit, the two legged feral animals are entirely black, in the ivory coast, entirely Muslim, but in Liverpool, mostly white,  Democracy, rather than race is the critical factor. The Ivory Coast would still be one of the most prosperous nations in Africa were it not for democracy.    In the Ivory Coast, democracy means that they really do eat the rich.  They have always been black, but were not eating people until the recent elections.  In the US, towards the end, we will very likely see members of one voting block eating members of another voting block, just as we are now seeing on the Ivory Coast.


sam on April 24, 2011, 07:58:25 pm
No welfare payments for single mums, no free childminding and brainwashing services, weak limits on patriarchal use of force, therefore socially conservative.  Fathers are likely to use violence to ensure that their daughters and those courting their daughters behave in a manner likely to ensure support for their grandchildren.  Such violence is likely to be socially acceptable because widely applied, and because no one with means to prevent it has any individual interest to prevent it.

In an anarchic society, whatever use of force is common and normal and people generally get away with it becomes legal, or not illegal, and whatever acts are apt to result in violence being successfully used against one, become illegal.  Patriarchy, therefore, is apt to be legal.  Whatever laws should be in theory, in practice they are apt to be biased in favor of those doing the enforcing.

Were it not for the fact that statists and other cement-heads accept such senseless contrafactual surmises as if they were in any way congruent with objective reality, I'd take this non sequitur substitute for reasoned argument as nothing more than a manifest of incompetence.  As it is, to speak of "Such violence" as ever being considered "socially acceptable because widely applied" in the kind of community depicted on Ceres in this graphic novel has got to involve either the method of the "big lie" or evidence of a debilitating psychiatric disorder.

All actually existent anarchic and near anarchic societies, for example saga period iceland and the old west, were socially conservative and somewhat patriarchal.  Courting someone's daughter without permission was apt to be hazardous.

SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 08:41:42 pm
Parents have no absolute right to rear their children as they wish. Their right is limited by the rights/desires of the child.

Obviously this theory is untrue at age four.  

No, it still applies, but clearly the average 4-year old will not be able to unambiguously articulate any desire to be independent that other adults would deign recognize. Yes, there is theory, but you have to consider its application to practical realities. I was a very precocious 4-year old, but I knew I could not do without my parents, nor did I wish to. My mother knew that, so did not even try to stop me. The result was a foregone conclusion.

Sure, we can posit all sorts of fanciful "what ifs," but the world is not made up of weird coincidences and lifeboat situations.

Supposing it to be true, is such a right likely to be respected in an anarchic society?

¿Quien sabe? Who knows? Also, you still have to consider the efficacy of our current system. ZAP solutions might, or might not, end up being different from our current system(s). In any case, the comparison is not between ZAP and perfection, but between ZAP and non-ZAP.

The rest of your post is basically speculation and projection. Interesting, but hardly persuasive. One point, though.

Protection, the application of organized force, will be mediated through the adult income earning members of the family, and to the extent that force is applied by the individuals directly concerned, the male members of the family, thus whatever you believe should be the case, an anarchic society is likely to have greater parental and patriarchal authority than a state society, hence will tend to be socially conservative in family matters, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be.

I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism. Without a shred of evidence or reason, you attempt to transplant this hierarchal monstrosity onto a free society. Why is thinking outside of the collectivist box so difficult?


sam on April 24, 2011, 08:49:27 pm
I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism.

The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.  Saying that men and women are equal is like saying Islam is the religion of peace.  No one who says such things can be taken seriously.

If one believes in immortal souls, it might be true in the sense of true of the next world, that their souls are equal, but it is transparently obvious it is not true of this world.  Political correctness transliterates beliefs about the next world, to this world, with nonsensical results.


SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 08:57:13 pm
All right, let's get down to basics. I believe that human beings are best served by a limited government whose only purpose (other than national defense) is to create a groundwork where the people might advance themselves as they desire.

That would be great!... If it were only possible. However, it is apparently a fantasy. No government in the history of the world has ever stayed limited to its original mandate. None.

Heck, I would be satisfied to live a country with a government  "whose only purpose (other than national defense) is to create a groundwork where the people might advance themselves as they desire." If only. It would be great, but I would rather take my chances with market anarchy and the ZAP. YMMV.

Holt on April 24, 2011, 09:00:54 pm
So how about a country which runs government as a private enterprise and seeks to remove upfront taxation by making you want to pay for its services?

SandySandfort on April 24, 2011, 09:19:20 pm
I just do not get this reasoning. Why you and others continue to posit this silly, archaic patriarchal expectation in a world of inherent sexual equality, is beyond me. Patriarch is a emergent aspect of collectivism.

The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.

Obviously, I am speaking about political equality, not the fact that statistically, women have bigger boobs than men. I don't see how that renders them second-class status, however.

Saying that men and women are equal is like saying Islam is the religion of peace.  No one who says such things can be taken seriously.

Agreed, but fortunately I have said neither. Reread my exact words.

Now here is something I would really like to know. What mental differences between men and women do you believe are "glaringly obvious"? This should be amusing.

sam on April 25, 2011, 12:25:59 am
The physical and mental differences between men and women are glaringly obvious, and anyone who denies them is merely being pious.

Obviously, I am speaking about political equality

But in an anarchic society you do not really have politics, or at least should not have politics, hence no politics to be equal before.  The differences between men and women are such that men will do most of the enforcement and provide most of the protection, while women will do most of the housework.  This will have consequences significantly different from a society where the state does the protection, most of the childminding and much of the economic support of women with children.

Now here is something I would really like to know. What mental differences between men and women do you believe are "glaringly obvious"? This should be amusing.

Famously, or infamously, women cannot read the map, and men cannot find the butter.

Men are markedly braver than women, so much so that "pussy" means cowardly, and "man up" means "be brave"  Almost all men are braver than almost all women.

Upper body strength:  Any man whose upper body strength is no more than that of a strong woman is seriously ill.  There is zero overlap between healthy men and healthy women in upper body strength.  Some female athletes look like they are counterexamples to this, but those athletes look they are taking male steroids.

Most women are worse at judging position and motion than most men, thus almost all women perceive almost all men's driving as scary, and almost all men perceive almost all women's driving as incompetent.

Because of differences in ability to judge time, motion, and position, a woman, after backseat driving her husband all day, will take a painfully long time parking the car.

While her husband drives, a woman will frequently tell her husband "watch out for that thing", when there is no possibility that that thing will intersect with the car the husband is driving if the car and the thing continue on their respective courses.  When the wife drives, the husband will never do this.

Women talk a lot more than men, and are better at it.  We automatically apply higher standards to women speaking than men speaking.  If a woman speaks no better than a man, we think she is mighty stupid.

Women are better at human relationships in a small number, close and intimate relationships.  Men are better at people in a large number of distant relationships.  Men are better than women in negotiating hierarchies, at acting within a hierarchy, within a team or large group.  Thus men are better at team sports, and enjoy them more than women.

Men are better at logic than women, which creates problems with efforts to affirmative action a sufficient number of women in science and such like.  A male computer science graduate can always parse a boolean expression, because he could not graduate if he could not.  A female computer science graduate usually cannot parse a boolean expression, indicating that if they required them to do that sort of stuff there would be very few female computer science graduates.

Similarly the fact that we are taught about so much about female scientists who are made famous for strikingly unimpressive accomplishments demonstrates that women just cannot do science very well.  If women could do science, those promoting women in science would have more impressive poster girls.

dough560 on April 25, 2011, 12:50:25 am
An example:  The military defines the age of mental competence as 7 years old.  Unless the individual manifests non-competence.  The age of sexual consent is 16 years of age male or female.  However local laws will be applied, if more sever than the military/federal laws/regulations.

In a country where prostitution was legal for a consenting adult (18 years old and older) I stumbled across a Prostitution Ring organized and operated by girls between 12 and 17 years of age.  In other postings, the local age of sexual consent was 13 and marriage was 14 years of age.

Cpt. Rhonda reminds me of a prostitute I knew back then.  All curves, physically a walking wet dream.  With her attitude/demeanor, no one touched her.  She only lasted a few weeks before the houses black-balled her.  She was bad for business.

Raise your kids to make choices in their implied self interest.  Do it right and they will make good choices.  I gave up a job that paid more than double what I make now, so I could be home with them.  As my kids have developed, they've proven to me, I made the right choice.  They aren't perfect but I have good reasons to be proud of them.

Government Functionaries?  See my views in earlier posts on changing language and TransProgs.  Taxes?  Government Interference?  Current Government Societal Damage?  See earlier posts.

Ceres has developed a body of law.  Whether the laws developed through a series of adjudications, based on general principles established by the earliest settlers.  Were voted on and approved by 90% of the population.  Or were initiated by early settlers as contractual functions and adjudications;  Sandy hasn't said.  At this point, it doesn't mater.  There is law.  Enforced by the general population who are conscious of their liberties and duties to each other.  These people are survivors.  People surviving via their resources, duties and obligations;  whether individual or societal.  Re:  ZAP and  Implied Self Interest.  The widespread availability of personal arms insured this would happen.  Just as the rule of law developed in the early U.S.

Holt, I know you won't get this.

Sam, I thought I was a dinosaur.....  You really should get out more.

That's a really one dimensional view of the opposite sex.  Almost on par with Barefoot and Pregnant.  Not even close to most of the women I've worked with or trained with firearms over the years.  Individuals have talents.  How they use them depends how they were raised, plus their training and experience as adults.  All of us have had to overcome limits imposed by family, friends and society in general.  Some of us, are just better at it than others, and that's normal.


sam on April 25, 2011, 03:30:28 am
That's a really one dimensional view of the opposite sex.  Almost on par with Barefoot and Pregnant. 

Whenever we are taught about women scientists, the implicit and unintended message is the opposite of the explicit and intended message.    By giving special and extraordinary attention to women who have done rather ordinary and routine science, the unintended message is that it is extraordinary for women to do science, that a woman scientist is like a three headed goat.

You know who discovered radium.  Why don't you know who discovered the other hundred elements?  But in fact you do not know who discovered radium.  Marie Curie was the least important member of a three man team that discovered radium.  Why don't you know who the number two man was?   Radon is another highly radioactive element, much more radioactive than radium.  It was much more important in the history of science, since the discovery of transmutation of elements by radioactive decay started with the discovery of the decay of thorium into radon.   That you don't know who discovered radon, while you imagine you know who discovered radium, implies that for women to discover things is remarkable and extraordinary, like a three headed goat or a man giving birth, an extraordinary event, while for men to discover things is ordinary and routine - and implies that everyone knows what they deny

Similarly, that the press gets orgasms because Obama can read fluently from a teleprompter, and he only occasionally stumbles slightly over the longer sentences, implies that black males cannot talk as well as white males - and implies that everyone knows what they deny.  If they, or you, actually believed what they say they believe, they would be entirely unimpressed by the fact that Obama can read fluently from a teleprompter, and no one would have heard of the third member of the team that discovered radium.

Aardvark on April 25, 2011, 04:30:51 am
Quote
Sam: Whenever we are taught about women scientists, the implicit and unintended message is the opposite of the explicit and intended message.    By giving special and extraordinary attention to women who have done rather ordinary and routine science, the unintended message is that it is extraordinary for women to do science, that a woman scientist is like a three headed goat.

It's the bell curve of intelligence. The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too. That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them. :)

If one really wants to break it down, men and women have different instincts, preferences, and mating rules. Still, there's not enough there to make different sets of laws. Each individual has to taken on their own merits.

J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 06:44:58 am

It's the bell curve of intelligence. The XX chromosomes tend to average instead of one being dominant. Men, having only one X chromosome, take all their intelligence from that. It means that there are a lot of women in the midrange of intelligence and fewer at either end. The men are spread out more along the curve. There are a lot more stupid guys than stupid women, but a lot more geniuses, too.

That's a plausible story, and the evidence is weak.

In any one cell, the XX chromosomes mostly don't average out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
One of them is mostly inactive. (But not completely inactive.)

But different cell lines can have different X chromosomes active. So there could be room for some sort of averaging. The genetics of intelligence is not worked out well at all, and there are stories about difficulties getting funding to study it. Maybe a lot of people just don't want to know.

Quote
That's why the top scientists are almost always men. There are also a couple of studies that show that average overall intelligence favors men, but the difference is slight: 5 IQ points in a study done in the UK and 3 points in a study in the US. I have no idea how rigorous these studies were, but I thought I'd mention them. :)

It's a plausible JustSo story. Intelligence is in general hard to study. One of the problems is that it's hard to get good results studying people who are more intellingent than the researchers, and somehow the most intelligent researchers appear to consider this a field worth staying away from. I could make up JustSo stories why they might feel that way.

Quote
If one really wants to break it down, men and women have different instincts, preferences, and mating rules. Still, there's not enough there to make different sets of laws. Each individual has to taken on their own merits.

In general, if you make laws designed to discriminate on some criterion, there will be people who officially meet that criterion who do not in fact meet it who will manipulate the situation in their own favor. You'd have to look at individual laws to decide whether this is "ants at a picnic" or whether it's important enough to change the law.

I like the idea of paying close attention to individual circumstances. But I also like the idea of one-law-fits-all, particularly when I don't get to choose who tries the case. What if the other guy is rich or popular? I don't want him to get everything his way because that's taken too much into consideration.

And yet, on the other hand, what's the point in being rich if it doesn't let you flout the laws? I might be rich someday, and then it would be good for me to be above the laws the peons have to follow.

These moral issues have a lot of complications.

Holt on April 25, 2011, 07:17:48 am
While there are many differences between men and women, racial groups and such. Studying them is difficult. Physical ones can be studied fairly easily despite controversy. Psychological and mental ones are much much harder to study because we still don't understand a lot about our own minds.