Philsophy of anarchy
C3
signs. How would you avoid hurting someone or being hurt?
C3
ornamentalmind
a discriminating mind. So, since such a mind can be attributed to
almost all human beings, your criticism fails. Since you only
presented one, the case is closed. Anarchy is of the utmost value
because of its extreme skepticism when it comes to institutions,
demanding that each justify their own existence.
---
“The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish
the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every
human being to liberty and well-being” – Emma Goldman
Michael Gordge
There are no road signs in many cities of Veit Nam and works well too.
There are now many towns in parts of Europe doing away with many road
signs with a reducing road toll being the result.
Anarchy is man's natural state and the further from nature that man
gets, e.g. by inventing laws, the greater his problems become, both
left and the right wing retards have yet to discover that fact.
MG
tg
The condition must be that there is an abundance of resources relative
to the population. This eliminates that utility of a State.
I have no idea what you mean by "how would you avoid hurting someone"
though---just avoid it!
-tg
1Z
> On Nov 23, 3:02 pm, C3 <C35...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Anarchy has its drawbacks. It would belike driving if there were no
> > signs. How would you avoid hurting someone or being hurt?
>
> > C3
>
> There are no road signs in many cities of Veit Nam and works well too.
Nope.
"Traffic in Vietnam is chaotic. Traffic accidents occur frequently and
the most common victims are motorbike riders and pedestrians. At least
30 people die each day from transportation-related injuries and many
more are injured, often with traumatic head injuries. Traffic accident
injuries are the leading cause of death, severe injury, and emergency
evacuation of foreigners in Vietnam. Traffic accidents, including
those involving a pedestrian and a motorized vehicle, are the single
greatest health and safety risk U.S. citizens will face in Vietnam."
> There are now many towns in parts of Europe doing away with many road
> signs with a reducing road toll being the result.
That's removing unnecessary signs to make it easier
for motorists to grasp the remanining ones. COmpletely
different from removing all signs.
> Anarchy is man's natural state
Says who? It has barely existed in history and
is usually violent chaos.
1Z
Just exerrcise 100% good judgement all the time.
That's why no-one ever takes up smokign or...
Daniel T.
I can't think of any society, any culture, any group of humans, where
anarchy is man's natural state... I can't think of any society, any
culture, any group of humans that live in anarchy. Maybe we are defining
anarchy differently? I define it as the absence or nonrecognition of
authority.
If you accept the definition of anarchy above, then what evidence do you
have for your assertion?
tg
I don't see what role a State plays in improving one's judgment. If
you wish to avoid hurting other people, you just have to think about
the consequences of your actions. Of course you will not be right all
the time but that's just life.
-tg
ta
"Controlled Chaos
European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs
By Matthias Schulz
Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and
regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.
"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and
"father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar
banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being
rediscovered.
European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and
directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free
and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of
the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions,
restrictions and warning signs.
A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven
cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby,
in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in
England and the Belgian town of Ostende.
The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch
province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town
(population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic
signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite
cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen.
There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There
aren't even any lines painted on the streets.
"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to
be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible
behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the
project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the
more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."
Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic
symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal
signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there,
make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser.
Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the
country.
Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated
regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers.
What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the
driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in
front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in
preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other
occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it
over the crossing while the light is still yellow.
"Unsafe is safe"
The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of
prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're
constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go
out the window.
The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this
vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to
take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those
during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and
people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new
model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending
into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.
It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of
the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator
down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully
regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive
more carefully and cautiously.
Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where
proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-
October.
True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German
drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg
University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour
traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes
the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy,
relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.
But one German borough is already daring to take the step into
lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500
inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars
approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and
pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.
The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The
sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be
covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains.
"We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."
The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale
experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has
45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red
natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they
want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and
waving.
"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic
planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light
crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now
traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the
right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."
Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined
dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have
visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new
example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the
British capital's Kensington neighborhood."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html
turtoni
turtoni
I don't want to live in a city and ideally I'd like at least 2 acres
of natural land around my house, without being able to see my
neighbors, near a fast "autobahn" leading to where a work with a 30
minute drive at around 70mph. At the moment, in the USA, a lot of
people can afford to do that but obviously in the future your setup
will probably, sadly, be more prevalent.
ornamentalmind
Michael Gordge
> That's removing unnecessary signs to make it easier
> for motorists to grasp the remanining ones.
The removal of a stop sign no longer makes it a crime not to stop and
has NOTHING to do with making things easier to grasp, it has
everything to do with placing responsibility back on the human
individual where it belongs.
> > Anarchy is man's natural state
>
> Says who?
Reality doesn't need anyone to say it, just to recognize it as it is.
In reality that there are no laws in nature, there is only cause and
effect, (the context is man made laws) and as you have noted, less man
made laws are a good idea.
The laws to abolish immediately are the laws where there are no
victims.
MG
Michael Gordge
> I can't think of any society, any culture, any group of humans, where
> anarchy is man's natural state...
Shrug, context dropping git, man's natural state is NOT a man made
state.
> I can't think of any society, any
> culture, any group of humans that live in anarchy.
Shrug.
> Maybe we are defining
> anarchy differently?
Without laws, man's natural state is without laws.
> I define it as the absence or nonrecognition of
> authority.
If you are not an authority in yourself, then by what authority do you
sanction that authority in another man?
You cant give someone something if you first didn't have it to give,
whether or not you like it, your natural state is lawless, there are
things called "the laws of nature" which is a different context.
MG
Daniel T.
> On Nov 23, 9:25�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Anarchy is man's natural state...
> > I can't think of any society, any culture, any group of humans,
> > where anarchy is man's natural state...
>
> Shrug, context dropping git, man's natural state is NOT a man made
> state.
What man has ever lived in a non-man made state? It seems to me that all
states a man can live in, are by definition man made.
> > I can't think of any society, any culture, any group of humans
> > that live in anarchy.
>
> Shrug.
Just what I thought.
> > Maybe we are defining anarchy differently?
>
> Without laws, man's natural state is without laws.
Tautologies aren't helpful.
> > I define it as the absence or nonrecognition of authority.
>
> If you are not an authority in yourself, then by what authority do
> you sanction that authority in another man?
>
> You cant give someone something if you first didn't have it to give,
> whether or not you like it, your natural state is lawless, there are
> things called "the laws of nature" which is a different context.
When you say our natural state is lawless, do you mean without written
laws?
Daniel T.
> (From an article)
> The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The
> sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be
> covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains.
> "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."
I like it. Instead of the authorities making smooth roads on which cars
can do 80mph and then putting up a sign saying that people can only
drive 40, they are simply changing the roads so cars can only go 40.
I don't know what any of this has to do with anarchy though. It's still
authority figures deciding all this.
ta
Yeah, sort of like state-sanctioned anarchy???
Michael Gordge
> When you say our natural state is lawless, do you mean without written
> laws?
I mean, man's natural state is lawless, anarchy is man's natural
state, are you deaf?
There are no laws in nature, notwithstanding and in a totally
different context, the so called laws of nature, e.g. gravity.
MG
Errol
There are several natural laws but the most relevant one to you is
The law of failure to produce progeny conceived thru bestiality
This means you can shag as many sheep as u want and they wont get
pregnant or sue you for date rape
Shag a sheep in your town square and you can witness anarchy first
hand as they string you from the neerest tree.
Michael Gordge
> Shag a sheep.......................................
Ewe need to seek help Eroool, ewe seem to think of nothing else but
having sex with animals.
MG
John Jones
I've read your question and now have formed an opinion. Was there
anything else?
tg
If your neighbor plays loud music, then is he an authority figure,
since he is deciding the conditions under which you live?
If you beat the crap out of him and break his speakers, are you then
the authority figure?
At some point, if you wish a word to be useful, you have to set some
kind of definition or limits for how it is applied. Most people would
agree that Somalia is anarchic, but there are people there imposing
their will on others.
-tg
Daniel T.
Men, by their nature, create laws.
All possible states a man can live in, are by definition man made. Are
you claiming that nothing man made can possibly be considered natural?
Errol
Logic will only confuse him and he will respond with more cussing and
swearing
Michael Gordge
> Are
> you claiming that nothing man made can possibly be considered natural?
Perhaps ewe are just stupid, man's natural state is without laws. The
evidence is overwhelming, the further from his natural state that man
gets, e.g. the scourge of parasitical socialism, the greater his
problems of survival become.
MG
Michael Gordge
His usual off topic Kantian crap
Fuck off idiot, I can fight my own battles, ewe dopey fucked in the
head commie cunt.
MG
Errol
That was man maybe 200 000 years ago retard.
since then laws affecting an individuals behaviour within a community
have become entrenched and is now 'mans natural state'
If there is a law guaranteeing the right to own property then there
must be a law to enforce it. How stupid exactly are you?
if there wasn't a law protecting your "right" to own property, i would
come over there right now and kick you out of your own house; dumbass!
Daniel T.
> On Nov 25, 9:53�am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2:48�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you claiming that nothing man made can possibly be
> > > considered natural?
> >
> > Perhaps ewe are just stupid, man's natural state is without laws.
> > The evidence is overwhelming, the further from his natural state
> > that man gets, e.g. the scourge of parasitical socialism, the
> > greater his problems of survival become.
>
> affecting an individuals behaviour within a community have become
> entrenched and is now 'mans natural state'
Errol, what are you talking about? What are "laws" in this context? Do
you believe that humans didn't submit to authority 200 000 years ago? As
far as I know, every species in the homo genus does so.
Daniel T.
Please point out some of this "overwhelming" evidence.
Daniel T.
Everybody submits to an authority that doesn't tell them what to do? :-)
Sounds like God... :-D
Errol
No! I don't believe it. I said MAYBE that was the case 200 000 years
ago in response to MG stating it is the case today. Maybe it was 300
000 or 150 000 years ago when man first started tribal communities
based on some kind of social contract.
ornamentalmind
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do you think those contracts were derived, defended and
instituted... and then regularly reviewed?
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would think it would be survival of the fittest applied to the
tribes.
151 000 BC
A tribal leader that chased away able bodied warriors would be subject
to danger from other tribes, prey and predators and might not
reproduce.
150 000 BC
A trader would need to observe rules of engagement to trade meat for
pelts in order to survive
10 000 BC
A farming community had to have rules regarding the care of, and
harvesting of plants and crops in order to survive
2003
G dubbya Bush ignores advice from the world community to invade Iraq,
in order to boost the military/industrial complex and thus the
American economy.
Thousands die.
Billions of dollars are spent.
2 years later the schmuck is reelected. maybe evolution is a
fallacy? :-)
What else do you want? A friggin essay or dissertation?
ornamentalmind
>
> - Show quoted text -
“What else do you want? A friggin essay or dissertation?” – E
No. I was interested in how you approach the notion of ‘social
contract’.
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just kidding
I didn't mean it in the same way as Roussea's Social Contract of
subordination of the individual will to the ultimate benefit of the
community but more along the general lines of Hobbes; "Human life
would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority."
Instead of political authority (which will send the randians in a
frenzy) I prefer the term "civil society" with its implied civil
rights and the right of the community to protect those rights.
Daniel T.
So you are equating Michael's "laws" with "social contract"... Now it
hinges on what you mean by social contract.
Can you give an example of a species that lives socially but has no
social contract? Otherwise, it seems to me that all social creatures
live by a social contract.
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you are confusing me with MG
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no way on earth I would confuse Michael's laws with social
contract. I was disputing that humans could ever have mingled with
each other without a social contract, except possibly for a short
while, between coming down from the trees, and forming the first tribe.
Daniel T.
> On Nov 26, 6:33�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 25, 6:17�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you claiming that nothing man made can possibly be
> > > > > > > considered natural?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps ewe are just stupid, man's natural state is
> > > > > > without laws. The evidence is overwhelming, the further
> > > > > > from his natural state that man gets, e.g. the scourge of
> > > > > > parasitical socialism, the greater his problems of
> > > > > > survival become.
> > > > >
> > > > > That was man maybe 200 000 years ago retard. since then laws
> > > > > affecting an individuals behaviour within a community have
> > > > > become entrenched and is now 'mans natural state'
> > > >
> > > > Errol, what are you talking about? What are "laws" in this
> > > > context? Do you believe that humans didn't submit to authority
> > > > 200 000 years ago? As far as I know, every species in the homo
> > > > genus does so.
> > >
> > > No! I don't believe it. I said MAYBE that was the case 200 000
> > > years ago in response to MG stating it is the case today. Maybe
> > > it was 300 000 or 150 000 years ago when man first started
> > > tribal communities based on some kind of social contract.
> >
> > So you are equating Michael's "laws" with "social contract"... Now
> > it hinges on what you mean by social contract.
> >
> > Can you give an example of a species that lives socially but has
> > no social contract? Otherwise, it seems to me that all social
> > creatures live by a social contract.
>
> contract. I was disputing that humans could ever have mingled with
> each other without a social contract, except possibly for a short
> while, between coming down from the trees, and forming the first
> tribe.
>
I'm not confusing you with MG, but you seem to know what MG means when
he uses the word "law" in this context. I have no idea what he means by
"law" in this context and he has refused to give any examples to help me
figure it out. You said above that you wouldn't confuse MG's laws with
your social contract, how are they different?
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
MG by "law" means man made laws. He believes that mans natural state
is to be without "laws". He is a follower of Ayn Rand and to him the
concept of Iaw suggests subordination of the individual to the will of
the "socialist" community. I disagree with that. I think that man has
had laws via some or other form of social contract for possibly 150
000 years or more.
Daniel T.
> On Nov 27, 5:44�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 6:33�pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So you are equating Michael's "laws" with "social contract"...
> > > > Now it hinges on what you mean by social contract.
> > > >
> > > > Can you give an example of a species that lives socially but
> > > > has no social contract? Otherwise, it seems to me that all
> > > > social creatures live by a social contract.
> > >
> > > There is no way on earth I would confuse Michael's laws with
> > > social contract. I was disputing that humans could ever have
> > > mingled with each other without a social contract, except
> > > possibly for a short while, between coming down from the trees,
> > > and forming the first tribe.
> > >
> > > I think you are confusing me with MG
> >
> > I'm not confusing you with MG, but you seem to know what MG means
> > when he uses the word "law" in this context. I have no idea what
> > he means by "law" in this context and he has refused to give any
> > examples to help me figure it out. You said above that you
> > wouldn't confuse MG's laws with your social contract, how are they
> > different?
>
> is to be without "laws". He is a follower of Ayn Rand and to him the
> concept of Iaw suggests subordination of the individual to the will
> of the "socialist" community. I disagree with that. I think that man
> has had laws via some or other form of social contract for possibly
> 150 000 years or more.
First you equate MGs "laws" with "social contract", then you say, "There
is no way on earth I would confuse Michael's laws with social contract,"
then you again equate the two, and even open the possibility that man
may have, at some time in the past, lived without social contracts.
Every social species lives with social contracts, are you implying that
man may have at one time, not bee a social species? If so, what evidence
leads you to think this is even a possibility?
Yes, I know MG means "man made laws," but every social organization that
man could conceivably adopt would be, by definition "man made," so I
don't see how adding the verb phrase "man made" helps distinguish his
laws from any other sort of law men could organize themselves by,
including Ayn Rand's.
If laws and social contract are the same, then just say so and fine...
if they are different, then please explain the difference.