Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Liberal = Aristocrat?

44 views
Skip to first unread message

Ken

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 1:39:01 AM6/22/04
to
I've seen this question come up a few times over the years, but I've never
seen a satisfactory explanation:

"Safaris through ancestral memories teach me many things. The patterns,
ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me the most. I
distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who
prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet
aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into
aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form
such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the
governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves
suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course all
bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find that even
under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's
that patterns are repeated. My oppressions, by and large, are no worse than
any of the others and, at least, I teach a new lesson."

--The Stolen Journals


I've given it a lot of thought, but I can't see how a liberal is a closet
aristocrat. My interpretation of liberalism says that equality is one of
its core values, and [American] conservatism endorses aristocracy fairly
openly. I can see a liberal government giving rise to larger bureaucracies
("Big Government") than a conservative one, but I don't see even a
high-level bureaucrat as an aristocrat, a member of a privileged class.

When I look at Communist states like China or the Soviet Union, I do see
something of an aristocracy of bureaucrats at the top, but I don't consider
these people to be liberals; I simply see them as people who have
accumulated power within a system where accumulating personal economic power
is not allowed.

If the "little people" did form a liberal government, and that government
did give rise to bureaucratic aristocracy, that doesn't make the founding
little people aristocrats. If the Tyrant scratched them, I think he would
find them idealistic and perhaps given his experience, naive, but idealistic
nonetheless.

Ken

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 1:52:16 AM6/22/04
to
Ken wrote:

> I've seen this question come up a few times over the years, but I've never
> seen a satisfactory explanation:
>
> "Safaris through ancestral memories teach me many things. The patterns,
> ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me the most. I
> distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who
> prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet
> aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into
> aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form
> such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the
> governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves
> suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course all
> bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find that even
> under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's
> that patterns are repeated. My oppressions, by and large, are no worse
> than any of the others and, at least, I teach a new lesson."
>
> --The Stolen Journals
>
>
> I've given it a lot of thought, but I can't see how a liberal is a closet
> aristocrat. My interpretation of liberalism says that equality is one of
> its core values, and [American] conservatism endorses aristocracy fairly
> openly. I can see a liberal government giving rise to larger
> bureaucracies ("Big Government") than a conservative one, but I don't see
> even a high-level bureaucrat as an aristocrat, a member of a privileged
> class.

Two words: Kennedy clan

> When I look at Communist states like China or the Soviet Union, I do see
> something of an aristocracy of bureaucrats at the top, but I don't
> consider
> these people to be liberals; I simply see them as people who have
> accumulated power within a system where accumulating personal economic
> power is not allowed.

Indeed - and if your personal belief system requires you to embrace the
nonsense of eqality (I'm ot speaking of equality before the law, but of
socialistic/liberal notions of egalitarianism) then power over *people*
(aristocracy/beauracracy) is what is left after you put aside power over
things.

> If the "little people" did form a liberal government, and that government
> did give rise to bureaucratic aristocracy, that doesn't make the founding
> little people aristocrats. If the Tyrant scratched them, I think he would
> find them idealistic and perhaps given his experience, naive, but
> idealistic nonetheless.

I'm not sure I agree. "Forming a government" isn't something you can do
without really and truly beleiving *you* are fit to rule over others - i.e.
an aristocrat.

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constituion, which IS
their job. How much less do they know about health care?" - M. Badnarik
Badnarik for President '04 t-shirt available at: http://www.ncliberty.net/

Douglas Barber

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 3:12:51 PM6/22/04
to

Ken wrote:

I see that Susan mentioned "Kennedy clan" in reply - FH himself
mentioned JFK in at least one interview about Dune, as an example of
what he called the danger of heroes, and the extreme danger of
superheroes, which he was explaining was one of the themes at the center
of the 2 Dune books in print at the time (70's) of the interview.
Exactly why he felt that JFK had been dangerous I don't know.

As for the aristocracy, I imagine he was thinking along the lines that
liberal governments look to expert so-called "social engineers" to bring
about the changes they desire, "technocrats" of a social science stripe.
If you look closely at the quote you've provided, I don't think he's
saying at all that the "little people" themselves are would-be
aristocrats, just that their desire for change leads them to put their
fate in the hands of aristocracies.

Hopefully its clear that I'm only trying to speak to what FH meant by
the quote you cited and not to whether a study of history would prove
him right or wrong.

Ken

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 4:54:36 PM6/22/04
to
> Two words: Kennedy clan

Ok, I concede that high level bureaucrats do form an aristocracy, be it the
Kennedys or the Politburo.

> I'm not sure I agree. "Forming a government" isn't something you can do
> without really and truly beleiving *you* are fit to rule over others -
i.e.
> an aristocrat.

I think that's too strict of a definition. If I pursued local political
office because I genuinely believed that my ideas would improve my
community, that act doesn't make me an aristocrat, IMO, though I would
certainly be on the path to becoming one.

"Susan Hogarth" <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
news:khMBc.50068$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Ken

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 4:54:42 PM6/22/04
to
> Two words: Kennedy clan

Ok, I concede that high level bureaucrats do form an aristocracy, be it the
Kennedys or the Politburo.

> I'm not sure I agree. "Forming a government" isn't something you can do


> without really and truly beleiving *you* are fit to rule over others -
i.e.
> an aristocrat.

I think that's too strict of a definition. If I pursued local political


office because I genuinely believed that my ideas would improve my
community, that act doesn't make me an aristocrat, IMO, though I would
certainly be on the path to becoming one.

"Susan Hogarth" <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
news:khMBc.50068$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Ken

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 5:14:49 PM6/22/04
to
> If you look closely at the quote you've provided, I don't think he's
> saying at all that the "little people" themselves are would-be
> aristocrats, just that their desire for change leads them to put their
> fate in the hands of aristocracies.

That makes perfect sense, but I still cannot reconcile the statement


"Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."

The only working interpretation I've come up with is that humans have an
innate tendency to seek a higher station in life, so everyone, conservative
and liberal alike, tend to move toward aristocracy. Thus any framework made
of men eventually organizes into a hierarchy where some are better than
others. Given this, anyone who espouses liberal ideas is denying their very
nature ("closeted"), and even if individual "pure liberals" existed, any
egalitarian government that they constructed would eventually give rise to
aristocracies.


Douglas Barber

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 6:04:30 PM6/22/04
to

>I still cannot reconcile the statement
> "Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."
>

Got me thinking on this once more. I think the purpose of his turn of
phrase there is just to highlight the irony in the situation. I see him
saying that a person whose stated (and sincerely believed) purpose is to
use government to overcome social or political inequalities like the
existence of hereditary aristocracy, has in the back of his mind a hope
that he'll become part of an elite group (an "aristocracy" in the looser
sense, as Herbert is using the word in your quote) empowered to carry
out this task of creating social or political equality on behalf of
others. Kind of like the Oedipus thing where the son, in the very act of
rebelling against the father, becomes more like the father. The son is
motivated to rebel just because as long is the father acts the part of
father toward the son, the son can't become what he feels he's supposed
to become, which is a father like his father.

Feyd

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 6:32:08 PM6/22/04
to

"Ken" <k...@yourmomshouse.biz> a écrit dans le message de
news:V4MBc.85665$eu.67746@attbi_s02...

>
> I've given it a lot of thought, but I can't see how a liberal is a closet
> aristocrat. My interpretation of liberalism says that equality is one of
> its core values, and [American] conservatism endorses aristocracy fairly
> openly. I can see a liberal government giving rise to larger
bureaucracies
> ("Big Government") than a conservative one, but I don't see even a
> high-level bureaucrat as an aristocrat, a member of a privileged class.
>
> When I look at Communist states like China or the Soviet Union, I do see
> something of an aristocracy of bureaucrats at the top, but I don't
consider
> these people to be liberals; I simply see them as people who have
> accumulated power within a system where accumulating personal economic
power
> is not allowed.

Communism,Communism but what is Communism.
If you read author like Karl Marxx or Lenine you will have an economic view
of it
which is to resume the power in the hand of the masses in these time the
workman
which as Marx said will revolt and unified beyond frontier to fight their
real enemy
the capitalist (from who all the war begun).
unfortunately things were not so easy, it is in human nature to fight each
other
by war or relationship, even in our own countries differencies exist.
But if you look at Staline governement and all the others after it
you will see a dictatorship (staline, mao)

it shows that power, like FH said ,attracts the less good willed men
and so use it for their own good

>
> If the "little people" did form a liberal government, and that government
> did give rise to bureaucratic aristocracy, that doesn't make the founding
> little people aristocrats. If the Tyrant scratched them, I think he would
> find them idealistic and perhaps given his experience, naive, but
idealistic
> nonetheless.
>


think that there again some people will abuse of this form of power
and so act like aristocrat.
Who were the first aristocrat and noble after all, the first people who
appropriate
some land and ask services for using it. property gived birth to
aristocracy.


bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 22, 2004, 8:01:55 PM6/22/04
to
My reading of most of Herberts books lead me to think he was a bit of
an anarchist actually, he mistrusted all sides of the political coin.

I recall in one of the last two books he talks about the fact that
people have learned to trust no information they learn through the
media, because they know all of it is tainted by propaganda.

Also remember Herbert was a Jungian, and a strong belief of Jung is
that strongly held beliefs and principles are driven by deep set
opposite drives. To Jung people people who hated homosexual generally
had homosexual tendencies, people who acted patriotic had deep doubts
about the nature of their socieity, people who acted friend had deep
aggression.

Now I know there is the "Dune was an action movie in a book" crowd who
will say that Herbert had no interest in Jung, but he did and that was
Jung's position.


"Ken" <k...@yourmomshouse.biz> wrote in message news:<V4MBc.85665$eu.67746@attbi_s02>...

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 2:47:47 AM6/23/04
to
Douglas Barber wrote:

>
>
> >I still cannot reconcile the statement
>> "Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."
>>
>
> Got me thinking on this once more. I think the purpose of his turn of
> phrase there is just to highlight the irony in the situation. I see him
> saying that a person whose stated (and sincerely believed) purpose is to
> use government to overcome social or political inequalities like the
> existence of hereditary aristocracy, has in the back of his mind a hope
> that he'll become part of an elite group (an "aristocracy" in the looser
> sense, as Herbert is using the word in your quote) empowered to carry
> out this task of creating social or political equality on behalf of

> others. ...

This is it exactly. Well put.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 2:50:29 AM6/23/04
to
Ken wrote:

>> Two words: Kennedy clan
>
> Ok, I concede that high level bureaucrats do form an aristocracy, be it
> the Kennedys or the Politburo.
>
>> I'm not sure I agree. "Forming a government" isn't something you can do
>> without really and truly beleiving *you* are fit to rule over others -
> i.e.
>> an aristocrat.
>
> I think that's too strict of a definition. If I pursued local political
> office because I genuinely believed that my ideas would improve my
> community, that act doesn't make me an aristocrat, IMO, though I would
> certainly be on the path to becoming one.

I believe it does make you a wannabe-aristocrat at least. You have the
effrontery to tell me that you are best fit to lead me and my neighbors?
What could be more aristocratic than that?

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 7:40:00 AM6/23/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<Vd6Cc.65710$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

>
> I believe it does make you a wannabe-aristocrat at least. You have the
> effrontery to tell me that you are best fit to lead me and my neighbors?
> What could be more aristocratic than that?

Well we need to have government at our current state of social
evolution, perhaps in a few thousand years we will be able to do
without but it seems today that government is a matter of necessity.

Aristoratic is a defined term, it means power from birth, so someone
who runs for office is not strictly be an aristocrate, though if they
are are Aschroft they can be described as dictators or fascist or
such.

What I find amazing about Americans is that they live in one of the
most extensive dictatoriships in exist on the planet. The US tax
authority is globally infamous for being harsh and aggressive to the
point of threatening. People in Europe don't fear their tax services
the same way the US people do. Sure they pay more taxes, but they are
also able to negotiate terms for payments and errors are treated as
errors, with terms negotiated over time and settlements made in a
friendly manner. In the UK a tax audit is a friendly thing that
companies accept, since it will generally improve their ability to pay
taxes more effectively and at a lower rate.

And then the drug thing. Europeans look at America, putting 100,000s
of people in jail for the sale of possession of drugs, claiming to be
the land of the free as utterly insane. Why does a nation which
claims to believe in personal freedom, low taxes, and limited
government spend so much money trying to put people in jail for
ingesting substances, many of which have never been found to have
harmfull effects.

In fact every part of life in the US is regulated and monitored to an
extent almost non-existent in any other elected government. The
wieght of laws and reguirements in the US from taxes, to sexual
conduct, to drug usage, to even banning nude sun bathing is simply
absurd.

Its that same American arrogance, that our nation is perfect, that got
us in to Iraq at work again. Americans are generally incapable of
questioning the assumptions of the existing order.

And when a society is at a state where the existing order is never
even publically questioned it is not free, even if the people in it
believe themselves to be free.

There is simply no debate at all about possible ways of changing
society in any major way, in fact people on the extreme edges of US
social thinking not only lack any political power, but run the risk of
going to jail since large areas of non-conformity has been made
criminal.

For example if a man likes a woman and she is not interested in him
accept for money, and they cut to the chase and negotiated an
arrangement for services that is not only a crime, it is a crime that
is aggressive prosecuted in the US courts, police departs have vice
squads to deal with such matters. Miami Vice didn't make it in Europe
for a large part because no one know what a Vice Squad was.

Also if you believe that marijuna laws are stupid and you want to grow
hemp, well you are looking at a long term in prision. If you believe
that LSD can be an effective tool in psychotherapy, which many doctors
did at one time, or magic mushrooms, you are looking at a long prision
sentence.

And if three people want to form a marriage together, well don't even
think about it.

Doctors can be jailed for assisting terminally ill patients to die in
peace, and if the right wing, those defenders of freedom, have their
way, women who become pregnant will have to go to Canada if they
decide not to become mothers, homosexuals who love each other and want
to live together are in danger of becoming criminals, in fact the only
freedom that Ameircans actually have that their European brothers
don't enjoy more of is the freedom to buy guns.

I never liked guns so I failed to see the benefit. I have encountered
some people who get so off on having guns that they seem to constitute
all of freedom for them.

As for freedom of speech, right. Everyone in the world who comes to
visit the US knows to watch what they say and who they say it to.
Freedom of assembly, only with a permit, freedom to pursue happiness?
Thats a joke.

Freedom comes from inside the soul, and most people choice not to have
it. Its much easier to tell yourself how free you are and live your
life like everyone else, in narrow socially defined borders, and
celebrate, in mass, your freedoms which you have been born with inside
of yourself as a human being but which you have decided to trade in
for a house, a care, a gun, a dog, a couple kids, and a TV set.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 10:49:11 AM6/23/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<Vd6Cc.65710$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
>>
>> I believe it does make you a wannabe-aristocrat at least. You have the
>> effrontery to tell me that you are best fit to lead me and my neighbors?
>> What could be more aristocratic than that?
>
> Well we need to have government at our current state of social
> evolution, perhaps in a few thousand years we will be able to do
> without but it seems today that government is a matter of necessity.

You are a perfect example of Herbert's 'scratch the surface of a
liberal ...' remark. You deem you know what is *neccessarry* for others.

As I said; aristocrat-wannabe. Ruler-wannabe.

I snipped the rest because, while I agree that the American government is
rather totalitarian and getting moreso each day, (1) it does not seem to me
that it is especially distinguished in that regard - if American tax
collectors are feared and loathed and those in Europe are not, that may be
more due to the fact that the European people are sheepish and willing to
hand over so much of their property to the state, and (2) because it's so
far off-topic.

JDisco

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 5:20:46 PM6/23/04
to
Great thread, BTW.

I think that if you define liberal by juxtaposing it with a
conservative. I start to see that the conservative is an 'every man
for himself' kind of guy, while the liberal see's that the
conservative will tread on the lower class in order to make a better
life for himself, and say 'Wait! we need laws to keep the
conservatives in check! We need workers rights, and womens rights and
civil liberties!" They would regulate those things that would not be
given by the 'Mans man'

When we start talking about Dune, laws, and regulations, I highly
recommend everyone re-read the conversation between Lucilla and Great
Honored Matrea on Junction. It is my favorite part of the whole
series, and it opens a window where you can clearly see that Honored
Matreas are what you get when you creat Beurocracy. As you create Laws
and Regulations you among other things create a system that consumes
the energy and resources around it, Government begins to feed off its
self. The poor begin to feed off the government. Industry thrives off
government contracts .. and eventually can not do with out them. Soon
governemnt jobs are the only jobs, and the best jobs are the ones
where YOU get to decide who gets the contracts. or where your brother
knows the guy who appropriates funds for this or that. Pretty soon you
are trading favors, corruption takes root and spreads. Soon the only
way to get anything done is to know somebody. and Aristocracy is born!
at least, thats how I see it.

and the biggest problem with this all, is that the system that all
this creats, is inherently unable to respond quickly to a changing
environment. They can not adapt. They can not do the unexpected. They
can only follow their laws =(
so sad.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 23, 2004, 7:35:47 PM6/23/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<HedCc.66842$2o2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Vd6Cc.65710$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> I believe it does make you a wannabe-aristocrat at least. You have the
> >> effrontery to tell me that you are best fit to lead me and my neighbors?
> >> What could be more aristocratic than that?
> >
> > Well we need to have government at our current state of social
> > evolution, perhaps in a few thousand years we will be able to do
> > without but it seems today that government is a matter of necessity.
>
> You are a perfect example of Herbert's 'scratch the surface of a
> liberal ...' remark. You deem you know what is *neccessarry* for others.

Well I will stand by my conviction, gained through living in three
countries and see many more, that at the present time human evolution
requires government of some kind or form. The modern Capitalist State
simply can not function without the structure of government in place.

Please understand that I am NOT happy to come to this conclusion. I
am a strong anarchist at heart and I find our current politics
oppressive and sad. I would love to see the State go. I am just of
the rock solid conviction that to do so would create a period of
dislocation which would simply be too traumatic.

I point to the periods of political transition in Russia, Iraq, Africa
and history in general. If lets say the UK utterly disolved and the
people of what was England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland had
suddenly no Queen, no government, no Parliament, and no councils.

How would trade be conducted without currency, how would law be
inforced, how would disputes be settled, who would insure the traffic
moved correctly, who would deliver the mail.

I understand that these services are being made more private and I
support much of this. In fact much of my business is built on
providing private services in areas that had been public sector. But
this really reform, in the end government still is there and still has
the power, we are now simply contracting services.


>
> As I said; aristocrat-wannabe. Ruler-wannabe.

Well I can honestly say after running a business for half a decade, I
would make a terrible ruler. If I am a ruler wannabe and not aware of
it, I strongly recommend you not let me get any political power.

But if you ever saw me you would have no fear of me ever winning
elected office or ever holding any real power, so you have no reason
to be afraid of my sudden rise to power.


> I snipped the rest because, while I agree that the American government is
> rather totalitarian and getting moreso each day, (1) it does not seem to me
> that it is especially distinguished in that regard

Oh yes it is honey. I suggest you take a plane ride to London or
Holland and see the higher degree of personal freedom that many
nations in the EU have.

>- if American tax
> collectors are feared and loathed and those in Europe are not, that may be
> more due to the fact that the European people are sheepish and willing to
> hand over so much of their property to the state, and (2) because it's so
> far off-topic.

Actually I can only speak for the US and UK tax collection agencies
both called the IRS. Having done taxes for both I can assure you that
despite the fact that UK taxes are higher, the UK government tax
collection is far far less aggressive. I don't imagine you would know
the international tax collection differences, I didn't until I had to,
but so much is in the details.

The British tax authorities are much much more accomidating than the
US ones, its a simple fact. When I was talking with a British tax
offical he asked when I wanted my audit, my heart almost stopped. He
said an audit was a common thing and they would help to insure that we
were paying the lowest possible taxes. My firm, in expanding business
to the UK, made some major early tax errors for which I am certain the
US IRS would have liquidated us, but the UK authority just invited
over and agreed to a repayment schedule. Its was entirely no big
thing at all.

The system is certainly more confusing and harder to manage for
businesses, but entire policy of enforcement is utterly different. In
the US the IRS simply assumes everyone they contact are criminal. All
business people dreed encounters with the IRS.

I know it is hard for Americans to imagine that things might be done
differently or even better, but I am asking you to make a leap of
faith here. Enforcement in London is handled with a much softer
touch. Certainly you have to pay the money and if you refuse to over
time they will take you to court, but how much they will go out of
their way for you. When you fuck up on your taxes in London they
don't threaten you with prosecution, they make you go to tax issue
classes. These are amazing, you get a expert in the tax code with you
for an entire 8 hour day, all free, and they even bring tea, coffee,
and cookies.

I was even given a tax experts entire day to go through every part of
my companies accounting and taxation to insure it was in compliance.
I can't even imagine the Ameircan tax authority doing this. I sat
with a woman provide by the British Tax authroity and went over our
payroll, payroll taxation, book keeping, accounting, reimbursement,
expense deductions, and partner compensation schemes and not only did
she check everything off, she even suggested how we could move money
around to pay LESS FUCKING TAX.

It turned out that after the British tax authority was finished with
us we ended up pay 50% less taxes each month than had been assessed
originally.

I lie to you not, and I hope you are reading because I know your
bright and I think you might learn from this. There is a tendency
among Americans who have little exposure to Europe to think that no
matter how bad things are in the US that they simply must be worse in
Europe. America remains, no thanks to George Bush, a very free and
dynamic society where people can achieve a great deal and live to some
extent as they please, but that does not mean that their government is
in ALL things the most free. Shit, the US puts people to death, I
mean what kind of limited government and mistrust of the system would
allow someone to grant on to their government the power to kill
people. Think about it. Most Europeans can't believe that Americans
trust their government enough with that kind of power and have long
ago taken that power away from the state.

I mean think about it. American conservatives claim that government
can't do anything right, that the judges are the worst branch of the
system and government employees are always less effective. The core
belief of conservativism is that government simply can not get
anything right.

And yet this same government is given the power to decide to execute
people through their system. To most Europeans this is utter
insanity. They would never have enough confidence in their courts to
allow them to pass sentences of death. They understand that the
police and courts fuck things up, and often do things wrong. In the
UK the troubles have tought many people a great deal about how bad
their government can be.

America is a wonderful nation, and an important one, but it could
improve itself by an understanding is that it is a nation among other
nations, and it can learn as well as teach.

Getting back to Leto and Dune, Leto went to Dune to learn. Review the
book, he is always talking about learning about the planet, the Baron
went their to teach. When any society stops being a learner and
assumes to be a teacher, which you have implicity done, then they also
are, to quote your cute phrase, wannabe rulers.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 1:18:06 AM6/24/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> I lie to you not, and I hope you are reading because I know your
> bright and I think you might learn from this.  There is a tendency
> among Americans who have little exposure to Europe to think that no
> matter how bad things are in the US that they simply must be worse in
> Europe.

Try to wrap your mind around this: I don't know, I never claimed to know,
and I really don't even care if things are 'worse in Europe' (although how
you can think higher taxes with 'nicer' theives equates to 'better' is
mind-boggling to me).

Let me repeat: I don't know how 'bad' Europe is compared to the US, I
haven't made any claims to know that, and I don't particularly care. Stop
reading what you 'know' I am thinking and read the actual words I am
writing.

You are blinded by your predjudices, you idiot.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 1:14:59 AM6/24/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> I know it is hard for Americans to imagine that things might be done
> differently or even better, but I am asking you to make a leap of
> faith here. 

I know it is hard for you to think of people as *people* (individuals)
rather than as "Americans", "British," and so on, but I'm asking you to


make a leap of faith here.

> Enforcement in London is handled with a much softer
> touch.  Certainly you have to pay the money and if you refuse to over
> time they will take you to court, but how much they will go out of
> their way for you.

Who cares? Those birdfuckers* are out to extract just as much or more blood
as the American ones. Who gives a fuck how *nice* a mugger is when he's
mugging you?

--
Susan Hogarth (*who gets that SF reference?)

Scotland Yard Department of Tire Mischief

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 3:04:13 AM6/24/04
to

Susan Hogarth wrote:

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
>
>>I lie to you not, and I hope you are reading because I know your
>>bright and I think you might learn from this. There is a tendency
>>among Americans who have little exposure to Europe to think that no
>>matter how bad things are in the US that they simply must be worse in
>>Europe.
>
>
> Try to wrap your mind around this: I don't know, I never claimed to know,
> and I really don't even care if things are 'worse in Europe' (although how
> you can think higher taxes with 'nicer' theives equates to 'better' is
> mind-boggling to me).
>
> Let me repeat: I don't know how 'bad' Europe is compared to the US, I
> haven't made any claims to know that, and I don't particularly care. Stop
> reading what you 'know' I am thinking and read the actual words I am
> writing.
>
> You are blinded by your predjudices, you idiot.
>

Sorry to see this type argument on a forum with some relationship to
Frank Herbert. I've enjoyed reading posts from both of you. I'm very
confident that FH would point out that "You close your ears to any point
of view at your own risk."

Now the obvious line of attack against my position is, "You're
straddling the fence." My answer is, a person who had really earned the
right to as strongly held an opinion as Susan is presenting here, would
argue in this way: "Bobby, you make 7 excellent points, and my argument
is not going to get anywhere so long as one of them is left standing."

It looks to me like bobby is the one making the argument in that manner,
so far.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 3:14:33 AM6/24/04
to

Bobby has done nothign but make a series of assumptions about what I beleive
and think based on the fact that I'm American. He hasn't made any argument
at all; only offered a bunch of insults and assumptions.

He charges me with an 'America is best attitude', when I haven't made any
such assertion. In fact he is the one who insists that Europe is somehow
'better' than America. I guess to him it is, because that's where he has
chosen to live. So what?

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 7:58:21 AM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<nWpCc.56436$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > I know it is hard for Americans to imagine that things might be done
> > differently or even better, but I am asking you to make a leap of
> > faith here. 
>
> I know it is hard for you to think of people as *people* (individuals)
> rather than as "Americans", "British," and so on, but I'm asking you to
> make a leap of faith here.

I remind you that you described Europeans as weaker and more passive
than Americans in your last post.

I find that strange because where I have my london office is between
two terrible diasters of WWII. A V2 rocket his a bridge where people
were sheltering, killing a large group, and panic in a tube stop
during the blitz left over 200 people dead.

In 1940 for a the late summer each day the sky was clear the south of
England suffered more death and destruction than 9-11, time after
time, for years until the thing was over. Hitler was sending rockets
over here until 1944.

What I was speaking about was institution of government, which are
singular in states and can be spoken about.


> > Enforcement in London is handled with a much softer
> > touch.  Certainly you have to pay the money and if you refuse to over
> > time they will take you to court, but how much they will go out of
> > their way for you.
>
> Who cares? Those birdfuckers* are out to extract just as much or more blood
> as the American ones. Who gives a fuck how *nice* a mugger is when he's
> mugging you?

Again I in theory agree with you, its just I just am of the utter
conviction that government is still necessary.

Lets say we got rid of the entire birdfuckers in one day, no more
taxes at all. Okay, that would also mean no military, no police, no
government roads or bridges, almost no schools, the dislocation to
society would result in the deaths of millions of people and mass
suffering.

Look at the utter failure in Iraq to transform one government. Look
at what has happen when the power of any state has declined.

Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization. We
can't return to tribal hunting and gather and we have not yet evolved
working system of non-government. And don't give me businesses, I run
a business and without the legal protections of the state, without the
services provided via the government monopoly from police to roads to
contract law to a million other things it would simply be impossible
to do business.

If I signed a contract to do X and get paid Y, and I did X and you
didn't pay Y, in fact you started selling X for a profit though I was
its inventor, what would I do? Who would issue patents, who would
enforce contract law, who would resolve the dispute, who would ensure
payment.

If we got rid of government we would need to rebuild it.

I agree that an arachist advanced state, like that described by Iain M
Banks, is the ultimate goal, but it is a very very very very far off
goal. I am a practicle man by necessity. When I lived in a cheap
apartment and had a job in an Computer lab I could be radical about my
desire for anarchism, but when I started selling work, signing
contracts, and paying people I became a great deal more pragmatic.

I agree with you that each of us should learn to live freer, with less
reliance on government and more innovation. But we are talking about
a cultural revolution which will take thousands of years. I
understand that.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 8:07:44 AM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<iZpCc.56438$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > I lie to you not, and I hope you are reading because I know your
> > bright and I think you might learn from this.  There is a tendency
> > among Americans who have little exposure to Europe to think that no
> > matter how bad things are in the US that they simply must be worse in
> > Europe.
>
> Try to wrap your mind around this: I don't know, I never claimed to know,
> and I really don't even care if things are 'worse in Europe' (although how
> you can think higher taxes with 'nicer' theives equates to 'better' is
> mind-boggling to me).
>
> Let me repeat: I don't know how 'bad' Europe is compared to the US, I
> haven't made any claims to know that, and I don't particularly care. Stop
> reading what you 'know' I am thinking and read the actual words I am
> writing.
>
> You are blinded by your predjudices, you idiot.


I quote the very post I responded to:

"I snipped the rest because, while I agree that the American
government is
rather totalitarian and getting moreso each day, (1) it does not seem
to me

that it is especially distinguished in that regard - if American tax


collectors are feared and loathed and those in Europe are not, that
may be
more due to the fact that the European people are sheepish and willing
to
hand over so much of their property to the state"

This certainly indicated that you had a set opinion about Europe and
that it was rather negative, and it was also rather general about the
entire nature of the people.

Also since right now the largest economic entity in the world is the
EU, that Europe is the home of our closest allies, that so many
Americans died fighting along side Europeans to end fascism, you lack
of interest in their lives and conditions strikes me as sad and rather
strange.

Why would someone be interested in a made up book set on a far away
planet 10,000 years from now concerning events that will in actual
reality never happen and people who will never be born, and not be
concerned about the nations which provided the main source of
immigration and social institutions of your own country. Everything
in American culture, well almost everything, has its origins in
Europe. Law, language, art, social custom, food, Capitalism, freedom
of the press, individual liberties, religious freedoms. All of these
concepts and principles that define America are European in their
origins. Our founding fathers were educated in a European tradtion
and context.

The EU and the US, understanding each other and working together,
could insure that in the 21st Century the emerging might of China and
India can be counter with a massive economic power grounded in a
respect for civil and human rights.

Thats fucking important, that the most important thing in the world
and right now that the most important legacy we can leave for our
children. If Ameirca and Europe stand united in most things we will
be able to at the least defend our freedoms, and potentially insure
that much of the third world develops towards our values, if we are
divied we simply play in to the hands of China.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 10:57:35 AM6/24/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<nWpCc.56436$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>>
>> > I know it is hard for Americans to imagine that things might be done
>> > differently or even better, but I am asking you to make a leap of
>> > faith here.
>>
>> I know it is hard for you to think of people as *people* (individuals)
>> rather than as "Americans", "British," and so on, but I'm asking you to
>> make a leap of faith here.
>
> I remind you that you described Europeans as weaker and more passive
> than Americans in your last post.

That's not true. I presented that as a possible alternative reason for the
'niceness' of European tax collectors. I wasn't asserting that as a known
truth.

However, I find it interesting that you consider evidence of bad thinking on
my part an excuse for the same on your part.

> I find that strange because where I have my london office is between
> two terrible diasters of WWII. A V2 rocket his a bridge where people
> were sheltering, killing a large group, and panic in a tube stop
> during the blitz left over 200 people dead.
>
> In 1940 for a the late summer each day the sky was clear the south of
> England suffered more death and destruction than 9-11, time after
> time, for years until the thing was over. Hitler was sending rockets
> over here until 1944.

Completely irrelevant. British people have suffered greatly. What has that
got to do with what we were discussing?

> What I was speaking about was institution of government, which are
> singular in states and can be spoken about.

Well, if you consider the manners of your pickpockets to be important,
perhaps you have a point. I'm more concerned with how much of my money I am
able to keep from them.

>> >Enforcement in London is handled with a much softer
>> > touch.  Certainly you have to pay the money and if you refuse to over
>> > time they will take you to court, but how much they will go out of
>> > their way for you.
>>
>> Who cares? Those birdfuckers* are out to extract just as much or more
>> blood as the American ones. Who gives a fuck how *nice* a mugger is when
>> he's mugging you?
>
> Again I in theory agree with you, its just I just am of the utter
> conviction that government is still necessary.

Yes, I know that you think other people need to be ruled. That is what makes
you a closet aristocrat. That was Herbert's *point*.

[snip apologia for continued thieving by the state]

> Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization.

Thank you for telling me I need to be ruled. The interesting thing that you
seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by those same
humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own lives. So you
propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of ruling themselves
rule others.

[snip]

--
Susan Hogarth

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 11:06:03 AM6/24/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

You misunderstood - I simply presented that as a possible explanation ('that
may be due'), not as something I knew for a fact. I have no idea, really,
what the 'character of the European people' is. I simply pointed out that
there could be more than one explanation for your observation (that Am tax
collection was 'harsher').

> Also since right now the largest economic entity in the world is the
> EU, that Europe is the home of our closest allies, that so many
> Americans died fighting along side Europeans to end fascism, you lack
> of interest in their lives and conditions strikes me as sad and rather
> strange.

It's a comparative lack of interest. I have more important things closer to
home. I lack sufficient data about Europe to decide it it's 'better' or
'worse' and I'm not inclined to take your word, nor research the question
extensively since I won't be moving anytime soon.

> Why would someone be interested in a made up book set on a far away
> planet 10,000 years from now concerning events that will in actual
> reality never happen and people who will never be born, and not be
> concerned about the nations which provided the main source of
> immigration and social institutions of your own country. Everything
> in American culture, well almost everything, has its origins in
> Europe. Law, language, art, social custom, food, Capitalism, freedom
> of the press, individual liberties, religious freedoms. All of these
> concepts and principles that define America are European in their
> origins. Our founding fathers were educated in a European tradtion
> and context.
>
> The EU and the US, understanding each other and working together,
> could insure that in the 21st Century the emerging might of China and
> India can be counter with a massive economic power grounded in a
> respect for civil and human rights.
>
> Thats fucking important, that the most important thing in the world
> and right now that the most important legacy we can leave for our
> children. If Ameirca and Europe stand united in most things we will
> be able to at the least defend our freedoms, and potentially insure
> that much of the third world develops towards our values, if we are
> divied we simply play in to the hands of China.

Take your racist bullshit elsewhere. What do you have against China? It's
not 'us' against 'them' - or it should not be. States infect their citizens
with this nationalist and pan-nationalist (UN, NATO) bullshit and then aim
them at the 'enemy du jour'. The Chines are not my enemies any more than
the British are, and I won't be bullied into thinking that because they
have been in the past cursed with an especially stupid government that the
*Chinese poeple* are some sort of threat to me.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 11:14:31 AM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth wrote:

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
> ...


>> Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization.
>
> Thank you for telling me I need to be ruled. The interesting thing that
> you seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by those
> same humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own lives.
> So you propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of ruling
> themselves rule others.

And THAT is what makes liberals aristocrats or wannabe-aristocrats. Can't
you just hear one of the HMs saying "Human evolution is not ready for a
State free social organization," as she raises taxes against one planet to
support an invasion of another?

That's the same tired excuse rulers and their apologists have always
offered: "In a perfect world, we would not need rulers. But since humans
are not perfect, they need to be ruled by me or by the ruler(s) I happen to
approve of." Unsurprisingly (although it seems to surprise these idiots),
not everyone agrees that YOUR choice of ruler should be THEIR choice of
ruler. And some people are audacious enough to want to rule themselves.
Imagine! What cheek!

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 5:40:52 PM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<zsyCc.58703$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<nWpCc.56436$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >> bobbyhaqq wrote:
> >>
> >> > I know it is hard for Americans to imagine that things might be done
> >> > differently or even better, but I am asking you to make a leap of
> >> > faith here.
> >>
> >> I know it is hard for you to think of people as *people* (individuals)
> >> rather than as "Americans", "British," and so on, but I'm asking you to
> >> make a leap of faith here.
> >
> > I remind you that you described Europeans as weaker and more passive
> > than Americans in your last post.
>
> That's not true. I presented that as a possible alternative reason for the
> 'niceness' of European tax collectors. I wasn't asserting that as a known
> truth.
>
> However, I find it interesting that you consider evidence of bad thinking on
> my part an excuse for the same on your part.

I simply examined such a frankly silly idea against the facts of
recent history, facts you should know.

The Brits are tough as nails young lady, in WWII they were more tested
many times over what the US ever was, and they stood their ground
alone when we didn't want to help. If you were to ever go to Europe
you should visit the vast areas or new develop, huge parts of Europe
were blasted to pieces in a war where almost 50 million people died if
I recall.

And after that war, this place burned to the ground, pounded from all
side, pulled themselves up and rebuilt their nations, and now they
enjoy the highest overall standards of living in the world.

Certainly America, when it had a partnership with Europe, helped a
great deal, but the people of Europe suffered many times worse than
the people of America and survived and flourished. To even consider
that somehow they are weak is not just poor thinking, it shows an
utter ignorance of the history of the past 60 years, which is only one
life time.


>
> > I find that strange because where I have my london office is between
> > two terrible diasters of WWII. A V2 rocket his a bridge where people
> > were sheltering, killing a large group, and panic in a tube stop
> > during the blitz left over 200 people dead.
> >
> > In 1940 for a the late summer each day the sky was clear the south of
> > England suffered more death and destruction than 9-11, time after
> > time, for years until the thing was over. Hitler was sending rockets
> > over here until 1944.
>
> Completely irrelevant. British people have suffered greatly. What has that
> got to do with what we were discussing?
>

The British people could have ended this suffering at any point by
simply sending accepting Hitler's offer to negotiate peace and become
neutral, which was what the US was doing at the time. All they had to
do was stop fighting and all this horror would have ended.

And they did not.

The mean, we know how tough the Brits are, they were tested in the
worst conditions as were the Russians. I find anyone who suggests
that somehow they are weak and passive where the Ameircans are not
disgusting.

I have meet many people who lost mothers and fathers in the bombing of
London. These are not the kind of people who just passively take
things.

Take a good hard look at the US insane response to 9-11 and the
comparision is not very good. Frankly, the Brits are a more proven
people than the Americans, perhaps some day the people of America will
have an hour as fine as Britian's finest hour.


> > What I was speaking about was institution of government, which are
> > singular in states and can be spoken about.
>
> Well, if you consider the manners of your pickpockets to be important,
> perhaps you have a point. I'm more concerned with how much of my money I am
> able to keep from them.
>

As do I. As I stated the British Tax Authority provided free
counciling for me to help me reduce the tax burden of my own company.

I'm sorry but that was impressive.

Again I don't like paying taxes and I find the nature of government to
be evil, but it is a necessary evil at this point in history.

> >> >Enforcement in London is handled with a much softer
> >> > touch.  Certainly you have to pay the money and if you refuse to over
> >> > time they will take you to court, but how much they will go out of
> >> > their way for you.
> >>
> >> Who cares? Those birdfuckers* are out to extract just as much or more
> >> blood as the American ones. Who gives a fuck how *nice* a mugger is when
> >> he's mugging you?
> >
> > Again I in theory agree with you, its just I just am of the utter
> > conviction that government is still necessary.
>
> Yes, I know that you think other people need to be ruled. That is what makes
> you a closet aristocrat. That was Herbert's *point*.
>

Perhaps, and I have said again and again please do not vote for me.

I worked with a photojournalist for years and she covered Albania,
Russia, Haiti, and Kosovo.

Your insults can not make me back down from my convictions, and I ask
you to show me a nation which lost its government and was better off
for it.


> [snip apologia for continued thieving by the state]
>
> > Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization.
>
> Thank you for telling me I need to be ruled.

I am sorry but the other options are non-exist. Without the power of
the state to enforce law and order the economy would collapse and
bands of criminal groups would establish their own mini-orders,
creating tiny slave states at the point of a gun. It has always
happened that way.

I grew up in Chicago and I know the kinds of criminal organizations
that are living under the surface of Americas cities. Without legal
authority these armed mobs would rise up to take everything, as they
did in Russia and Haiti.

I deeply wish that we could live in a working anarchist state, and I
believe in the greatest degree of personal freedom possible. I am
opposed to almost every institution that presently exists from
education to religion to 90% of law enforcement.

But growing up in Chicago I saw the intense violence still active in
humanity, and I am happy to provide an elected authority the final
monopoly on the use of force: the state.

When humans are a species entirely give up the use of violence and
reach a moral state that they can rule themselves and be trusted not
to enslave others I would be the happiest man on earth.

I am not saying the state is RIGHT, I am saying it is necessary.

> The interesting thing that you
> seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by those same
> humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own lives. So you
> propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of ruling themselves
> rule others.


I am saying that someone will always try to rule others. A state,
backed up by an army and police force, provides a regular means of
this. A highly evolved state like the US or EU states provide a just
tolerable level of power. They are just acceptable, that all, just
acceptable.

The asperation of democracy is that this state takes on as much of the
principles of collective self rule as possible, though this is far
from perfect. I imagine over the centuries we will continue the
evolution of rule by thugs, which has been the human norm, to rule by
elected bodies. I am an opptomist and I believe that Capitalism and
technology will resolve the major crisis facing the provide for
increasing levels of self rule of individuals through great democracy
and devolution of power.

But I am saying this is a process of reform, a great effort to work
towards.

I am just wondering, what are you proposing. Do you think that Monday
we should abolish all state, local, and government authority. All
printing of money, all passing and enforcing of laws, all payments of
benefits, all military spending, all road maintance, everything?

What you fail to understand is that in politics one simply can not
escape the aristocratic trend, any policy one decides will impact
others. If you call for the end of government this will have a
massive impact on everyone else. If the United States no longer
existed than the value of all US Dollars held in reserve would
collapse. A translation to some kind of gold or silver standard would
take decades, and have massive economic impact.

I hate being ruled, but having seen what not being ruled means I fear
not being ruled more at this point. It is impossible to hold any
opinions on politics without making decisions for a mass of people
other than yourself, this is the nature of politics.

My stance, as much as I ethically agree that a state is wrong I see no
practicle way to abolish it. Overall the current system seems to be
working well enough. I am working for the long term.

My lifes work is in computers, for I believe in time they will provide
the means to manage our resources, and provide the mass surplus that a
money economy will no longer be necessary, and a government state will
not be needed.

I have not interest in going up to the fills and shotting rabbits with
bows. I like living in big cities, I like operas and plays, I like
art openings, I like museums and these things require cities. Cities
require billions of tons of power, water, food, and all other
resources be shipped in on streets and trains, they require police
protection, street cleaners, schools, hospitals, and thousands of
other agencies that it is hard to see precisely how they could be
managed without some kind of legal authority.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 6:53:03 PM6/24/04
to
On 24 Jun 2004 10:40:52 -0700, in article

<689922c7.04062...@posting.google.com>, bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
>Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<zsyCc.58703$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>>
>> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<nWpCc.56436$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> >> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>> >> [...]

>> > What I was speaking about was institution of government, which are
>> > singular in states and can be spoken about.
>>
>> Well, if you consider the manners of your pickpockets to be important,
>> perhaps you have a point. I'm more concerned with how much of my money I am
>> able to keep from them.
>>
>As do I. As I stated the British Tax Authority provided free
>counciling for me to help me reduce the tax burden of my own company.
>
>I'm sorry but that was impressive.

Oh, that's RICH. A government agency spending taxpayer money to HELP TAXPAYERS
REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN. Does this bountiful program have a name? I'd like to get
the facts right when I mock it publicly as another example of socialism in
(in)action.

And you're -impressed- with this sort of 'service'!? A-maz-ing.

>Again I don't like paying taxes and I find the nature of government to
>be evil, but it is a necessary evil at this point in history.

I find it repellent that you think evil is neccessary.

[...]

>> [snip apologia for continued thieving by the state]

>I deeply wish that we could live in a working anarchist state, ...

"Anarchist state"? Perhaps if you understood what anarchy meant you would not be
so gloomy and despondent about the prospect of freedom.

> and I
>believe in the greatest degree of personal freedom possible. I am
>opposed to almost every institution that presently exists from
>education to religion to 90% of law enforcement.

You're opposed to religion and education and 'almost every institution that
presently exists'? You really *don't* understand freedom, do you?

> [...]


>I am not saying the state is RIGHT, I am saying it is necessary.

You think it is neccessary to be/do wrong?!

>> The interesting thing that you
>> seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by those same
>> humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own lives. So you
>> propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of ruling themselves
>> rule others.
>
>I am saying that someone will always try to rule others. A state,
>backed up by an army and police force, provides a regular means of
>this.

"Since some people are going to be asholes, we need to give them a formal
mechanism protected by custom and law in which to perfect their assholery." Is
that about it?

[...]

>The asperation of democracy is that this state takes on as much of the
>principles of collective self rule as possible,

*Collective self rule*. Now *there* is a new one for me.

> though this is far
>from perfect. I imagine over the centuries we will continue the
>evolution of rule by thugs, which has been the human norm, to rule by
>elected bodies.

i.e. '*gangs* of thugs'

> I am an opptomist and I believe that Capitalism and
>technology will resolve the major crisis facing the provide for
>increasing levels of self rule of individuals through great democracy
>and devolution of power.

Involuntary democracy (i.e. state democracy) is about as far from self-rule as
is possible. With royalty at least you only had ONE ruler - with democracy
everyone is your ruler!

>But I am saying this is a process of reform, a great effort to work
>towards.

Democracy DECREASES freedom.

>I am just wondering, what are you proposing.

Freedom.

> Do you think that Monday
>we should abolish all state, local, and government authority.

No. Personally I think we should just ignore it until it goes away, but assholes
and parasites have a tendency to stick around long after they have worn out
their welcome. Probably eventually they will put up a fuss about being ignored
and it willbe neccessary to respnd in kind.

> All
>printing of money, all passing and enforcing of laws, all payments of
>benefits, all military spending, all road maintance, everything?

What do those things *neccessarily* have to do with government?

>What you fail to understand is that in politics one simply can not
>escape the aristocratic trend,

There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of aristocracy. When
aristocracy is combined with rule over others by force, *then* it is a great
evil.

> any policy one decides will impact
>others.

That is the nature of politics - the use of force by one person or group of
people to get what they want from others.

> If you call for the end of government this will have a
>massive impact on everyone else.

If I "call" for it, or if it *happens*? Regardless, I make no call for anything
but individual freedom. You are free to have a voluntary nation-state, or even
to submit yourself to a coercive one if you are so perverse. What you are not
entitled to do is cooperate in the enslavement of your fellows because of some
misguided feeling that it is what is 'best' for them.

> If the United States no longer
>existed than the value of all US Dollars held in reserve would
>collapse.

Of course. They're worthless.

> A translation to some kind of gold or silver standard would
>take decades, and have massive economic impact.

Better to get started right away, then, wouldn't you say?

>I hate being ruled, but having seen what not being ruled means I fear
>not being ruled more at this point.

You fear freedom?

> It is impossible to hold any
>opinions on politics without making decisions for a mass of people
>other than yourself, this is the nature of politics.

That's stupid. Having an opinion is NOT the same as 'making a decision for
someone else'. I know those who love democracy WANT that perversion to come
true, but it is not at all the same thing.

>My stance, as much as I ethically agree that a state is wrong I see no
>practicle way to abolish it.

So instead you'll spend time arguing why somehting you admit is WRONG is really
NECCESSARY? You're confused!

> Overall the current system seems to be
>working well enough.

We are still here to argue about it and living in relative ease, so I cannot
argue with you on that point at least. The fact that *I* thrive, however, does
not suggest to me that evil ought to be tolerated or condoned.

> I am working for the long term.

Good for you.

>My lifes work is in computers, for I believe in time they will provide
>the means to manage our resources, and provide the mass surplus that a
>money economy will no longer be necessary, and a government state will
>not be needed.

Ah, yes, the SF version of the socialistic fallacy.

>I have not interest in going up to the fills and shotting rabbits with
>bows. I like living in big cities, I like operas and plays, I like
>art openings, I like museums and these things require cities. Cities
>require billions of tons of power, water, food, and all other
>resources be shipped in on streets and trains, they require police
>protection, street cleaners, schools, hospitals, and thousands of
>other agencies that it is hard to see precisely how they could be
>managed without some kind of legal authority.

I'm sure it was hard for plantation owners to "see precisely" how their fields
would get plowed and planted without slave labor, too.

--
Susan Hogarth
Badnarik for President : http://www.badnarik.org

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 9:38:19 PM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<rIyCc.58706$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> Susan Hogarth wrote:
>
> > bobbyhaqq wrote:
> > ...
> >> Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization.
> >
> > Thank you for telling me I need to be ruled. The interesting thing that
> > you seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by those
> > same humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own lives.
> > So you propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of ruling
> > themselves rule others.
>
> And THAT is what makes liberals aristocrats or wannabe-aristocrats. Can't
> you just hear one of the HMs saying "Human evolution is not ready for a
> State free social organization," as she raises taxes against one planet to
> support an invasion of another?
>
> That's the same tired excuse rulers and their apologists have always
> offered: "In a perfect world, we would not need rulers. But since humans
> are not perfect, they need to be ruled by me or by the ruler(s) I happen to
> approve of." Unsurprisingly (although it seems to surprise these idiots),
> not everyone agrees that YOUR choice of ruler should be THEIR choice of
> ruler. And some people are audacious enough to want to rule themselves.
> Imagine! What cheek!


This is a response to yourself.

I agree with you entirely that liberals are aristocrats, I have said
time and time again that I am ethically a anarchist, I would also like
to see people give up violence and enough surplus to be created that
all may live rich.

I actually am not sure much about taxation in Dune, it seemed the
Feudial system was more depend on direct ownership of assets of value.
But anyone who would use my argument would be doing so cynically.
Hitler said he wanted peace when he made war, but peace was still a
good idea.

Again I do not claim a veto over elections. I believe rulers should
be elected on a regular basis by the entire population. I prefer the
people I like get elected but I make no demand that this be the case.

I also want to rule myself, and to a great extent I do. I am opposed
to society holding power over the individual through state, religion
or government and I feel people should decide for themselves what kind
of sexual love bonds they wish to form (particularly gay marriage
right now), what a woman can do with her body, if people want to take
substances to enhance thier consciousness, all very liberal beliefs
and ones in keeping with respect for the personal individual.

But I ask you to outline for me how this transformation is going to
take place. At present our economy is depend upon paper money backed
up by nothing but the state, how is this going to be dealt with? And
as for contract laws, if someone violates a contract what am I to do?
And if I hear a man in a house near mine, a big violent man with a
weapons kicking the shit out of his wife what am I to do?

You have been vague long enough, I want some solid answeres. How in
this state free society are we to deal with the most basic issues of:

Money
Criminal bands
Contract law
Roads
Crimes and punishment
Individuals who are clear dangers to society

What the plan here? I heard the speech, now lets get to some planning
now.

If you are a libertian I am not impressed. They talk more radical
than their policies and as a party they have utterly failed to work
the full implications of their message. Essentially they are a reform
movement which wants a reduction in state power, not an anarchist
state.

Again I crave an anarchist state and when a enough humans decide to be
self ruling so that the state is no longer needed I would be very
happy, I just happen to think I will be dead.

We both utterly agree on the goal, the issue is timing.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 9:46:07 PM6/24/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<nb6Cc.65709$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> Douglas Barber wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >I still cannot reconcile the statement
> >> "Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."
> >>
> >
> > Got me thinking on this once more. I think the purpose of his turn of
> > phrase there is just to highlight the irony in the situation. I see him
> > saying that a person whose stated (and sincerely believed) purpose is to
> > use government to overcome social or political inequalities like the
> > existence of hereditary aristocracy, has in the back of his mind a hope
> > that he'll become part of an elite group (an "aristocracy" in the looser
> > sense, as Herbert is using the word in your quote) empowered to carry
> > out this task of creating social or political equality on behalf of
> > others. ...
>
> This is it exactly. Well put.

This would certainly be in keeping with Herbert's strong use of Jung
in his works. Jung beleived a system of opposites ruled the human
mentality, with what one saw on the outside driven by the opposite on
the inside.

As for present politics, I guess I would say liberas are closet
aristocrats and conservates have come out of the closet.

Though I am not really sure what aristocratic means to you all. Do
you man the rule by an elite or the hereditary rule by the elite.

If the liberal are in the closet the GOP has, in their election of
George W Bush come out of it. If he was not the son of a former
President he would never have been considered even for Texas Govenor.
In fact the previous GOP President has one son as President, and doing
a terrible job of it, and one as govenor of Florida, and equally
failing.

Granted the brother of a President is in the Senate as is the wife of
one two.

But still America provides a great deal of merit was well. Clinton
was a man of the most humble origins, a true self made man and embrace
on the left and not the right. But Reagan was also a self made man.

I would point out that the two most successfull President of the past
40 years were both men of humble origins who rose up to the office.

I would approve of a system of government where all laws required the
full consent of the governed, and I hope that technology will make
something like this more workable in the near future.

Till Crueger

unread,
Jun 24, 2004, 8:47:07 PM6/24/04
to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:53:03 +0000, Susan Hogarth wrote:

>>Again I don't like paying taxes and I find the nature of government to
>>be evil, but it is a necessary evil at this point in history.
>
> I find it repellent that you think evil is neccessary.

From your statements I gather that you seem to think taking away Freedom
in any way from an individual. May I Quote something to you:

"Prisons should exist to separate those who would violate the rights of
others from civil society. The Constitutional rights of prisoners and
ex-prisoners should be abridged only where it is necessary to accomplish
this purpose."

Sounds Familiar? Well, then if you say taking away freedom is evil, but
you party says it is neccesary (the quote was taken from
http://www.lpnc.org/issues/platform.html ) I must say that I think it
repellent that your party considers evil neccesarry.

>>I deeply wish that we could live in a working anarchist state, ...
>
> "Anarchist state"? Perhaps if you understood what anarchy meant you
> would not be so gloomy and despondent about the prospect of freedom.

Well, so far you failed to explain it as well. I gathered some information
from your website and the pages linked by it. I must say I could find some
points that i have to agree to. I other points about which I have to say
that you definitely have to get out of your narrow frame of mind, and have
a look at the EU because quite a lot of them are part of the system the EU
created. Other points I find plain naive.



>> and I
>>believe in the greatest degree of personal freedom possible. I am
>>opposed to almost every institution that presently exists from education
>>to religion to 90% of law enforcement.
>
> You're opposed to religion and education and 'almost every institution
> that presently exists'? You really *don't* understand freedom, do you?

Well, so far you have completely failed to explain what you mean when you
use this rather broad term "Freedom". Until you have done so, I find it
rather pointless to accuse others of misunderstanding your meaning of this
term.

>>I am saying that someone will always try to rule others. A state,
>>backed up by an army and police force, provides a regular means of this.
>
> "Since some people are going to be asholes, we need to give them a
> formal mechanism protected by custom and law in which to perfect their
> assholery." Is that about it?

Well, If they are assholes, then why are the majority of the people
supporting them? I know this sounds rather naive as well, but there is
more to this simple statement than meets the eye. There are enough ways to
achieve that the people you dislike are not in office anymore. Well, at
least in Europe there are. I know that it is a bit different in America,
because only two parties have any real influence on the politics.

>> though this is far
>>from perfect. I imagine over the centuries we will continue the
>>evolution of rule by thugs, which has been the human norm, to rule by
>>elected bodies.
>
> i.e. '*gangs* of thugs'

Well, since they are elected, that would not be their fault, but the fault
of those who elected them.



>> I am an opptomist and I believe that Capitalism and
>>technology will resolve the major crisis facing the provide for
>>increasing levels of self rule of individuals through great democracy
>>and devolution of power.
>
> Involuntary democracy (i.e. state democracy) is about as far from
> self-rule as is possible. With royalty at least you only had ONE ruler -
> with democracy everyone is your ruler!

But that also means, that everyone, including you can become ruler AND
ruled. And that anyone can try to make the changes he deems fitting.

>>But I am saying this is a process of reform, a great effort to work
>>towards.
>
> Democracy DECREASES freedom.

Uhm, you give a link to the "John Locke Foundation" on your website, but
have you also cared to ever study the works of Locke? This is what I found
about Lockes Ideas:
"Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon
their own strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by
entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective
services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as
revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are
governed, which may be withdrawn at any time."

The two most important points of this are the idea of the social contract
and the possibility that it can be revoked. In the social contract it is
that the Freedom of the individual is reduced, to ensure the freedom of
others. At some point the freedom of an individual will always interfere
with the freedom of others. At this point it will always be necessary to
reduce the freedom of one individual at cost of others. In our current
state this is done with laws, but it might be possible that at some point
we find a better way. If you know any such way, then let us know about it.
The revokability of the contract is ensured by the repeated elections of
the government officials. The contract is not completely revokable, since
this would throw us back to the "original state of nature in which
individuals rely upon their own strength", this state is described as
primitive in allmost all philosophical texts dealing with the matter of
the social contract for good reasons, and should be avoided if possible. I
can just repeat the examples of Russia and the French revolution to show
how extreme a society can become during such moments.



>>I am just wondering, what are you proposing.
>
> Freedom.

You just managed to stay the most agreeable, by actually conveying the
least information. The term Freedom is a term that hardly anyone can
disagree with, and if somebody were to disagree with it, you could rightly
call him a fascist or Aristocrat. However at the same moment almost
everybody has a different oppinion on how freedom should ultimately look
like and how it should be achieved.

>> Do you think that Monday
>>we should abolish all state, local, and government authority.
>
> No. Personally I think we should just ignore it until it goes away, but
> assholes and parasites have a tendency to stick around long after they
> have worn out their welcome. Probably eventually they will put up a fuss
> about being ignored and it willbe neccessary to respnd in kind.

Well, this strikes me as a rather ignorant position. If I get you right
you are simply proposing to ignore the things one dislikes, until they go
away on their own? Well, from no on I will try your attitude, ignore the
dirt on my floor, the stink in my toilet etc. I am sorry, but I just don't
get the right feel of this, I personally have to know that I am taking my
life (don't get me wrong, this is ONLY about my life, and not of others)
into my own hands.

Did I get your position right? Or is it rather that you are so emotionaly
involved in this discussion, that you are simply disagreeing with anything
your opponent is saying. Somehow from your webpage I get the idea that you
do not at all have the tendency to simply ignore what you dislike, but
rather do something about it.

>> any policy one decides will impact
>>others.
>
> That is the nature of politics - the use of force by one person or group
> of people to get what they want from others.

And it is also the nature of humankind, as described by Locke and others.
Hence the government regulation becomes necessary, to ensure that in using
this force, no one will harm the freedom of others.

Ok, I think this is enough for one first post to a new Group. Sorry I am
off-Topic to all those who are still reading this thread. I still think
there are some further logical fallacies in your thinking, but I am too
tired to point them out now. Maybe I will do so in a later post, but I
rather doubt I will reply again in this thread.

Till

--
Please add "Salt and Peper" to the subject line to bypass my spam filter

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 1:26:04 AM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<nb6Cc.65709$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> Douglas Barber wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >I still cannot reconcile the statement
>> >> "Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Got me thinking on this once more. I think the purpose of his turn of
>> > phrase there is just to highlight the irony in the situation. I see him
>> > saying that a person whose stated (and sincerely believed) purpose is
>> > to use government to overcome social or political inequalities like the
>> > existence of hereditary aristocracy, has in the back of his mind a hope
>> > that he'll become part of an elite group (an "aristocracy" in the
>> > looser sense, as Herbert is using the word in your quote) empowered to
>> > carry out this task of creating social or political equality on behalf
>> > of others. ...
>>
>> This is it exactly. Well put.
>
> This would certainly be in keeping with Herbert's strong use of Jung
> in his works. Jung beleived a system of opposites ruled the human
> mentality, with what one saw on the outside driven by the opposite on
> the inside.
>
> As for present politics, I guess I would say liberas are closet
> aristocrats and conservates have come out of the closet.
>
> Though I am not really sure what aristocratic means to you all. Do
> you man the rule by an elite or the hereditary rule by the elite.

The former is probably closest to my understanding.

> [...]

> I would approve of a system of government where all laws required the
> full consent of the governed, and I hope that technology will make
> something like this more workable in the near future.

It's not a question of technology. If the vote was 99% 'for' and 1%
'against', would this system you approve of recognize the right of the 1%
to be governed under laws of their own choosing?

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 1:55:49 AM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<rIyCc.58706$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> Susan Hogarth wrote:
>>
>> > bobbyhaqq wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Human evolution is not ready for a State free social organization.
>> >
>> > Thank you for telling me I need to be ruled. The interesting thing that
>> > you seem to neglect is that this state you speak of has to be run by
>> > those same humans you do not consider 'evolved enough' to run their own
>> > lives. So you propose to have people who you beleive are incapable of
>> > ruling themselves rule others.
>>
>> And THAT is what makes liberals aristocrats or wannabe-aristocrats. Can't
>> you just hear one of the HMs saying "Human evolution is not ready for a
>> State free social organization," as she raises taxes against one planet
>> to support an invasion of another?
>>
>> That's the same tired excuse rulers and their apologists have always
>> offered: "In a perfect world, we would not need rulers. But since humans
>> are not perfect, they need to be ruled by me or by the ruler(s) I happen
>> to approve of." Unsurprisingly (although it seems to surprise these
>> idiots), not everyone agrees that YOUR choice of ruler should be THEIR
>> choice of ruler. And some people are audacious enough to want to rule
>> themselves. Imagine! What cheek!
>
> This is a response to yourself.

Geee, I hadn't guessed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Very sharp of
you.

> I agree with you entirely that liberals are aristocrats, I have said
> time and time again that I am ethically a anarchist,

You say that you are 'ethically a[n] anarchist' but then you support
government and call it 'neccessary'. Wouldn't you call that hypocritical?

> I would also like
> to see people give up violence and enough surplus to be created that
> all may live rich.

I guess you put that sort of utopianism in with your 'ethical anarchism' -
something you'd like to see happen but until then you *yourself* will act
in a contrary manner.

> I actually am not sure much about taxation in Dune, it seemed the
> Feudial system was more depend on direct ownership of assets of value.
> But anyone who would use my argument would be doing so cynically.
> Hitler said he wanted peace when he made war, but peace was still a
> good idea.

This is unintelligible. Care to try again?

> Again I do not claim a veto over elections.

Yes, I know. You don't beleive people should rule themselves. You don't
beleive in freedom.

> I believe rulers should
> be elected on a regular basis by the entire population.

100%? Or are you thinking collectivistically when you say 'the entire
population'?

> I prefer the
> people I like get elected but I make no demand that this be the case.

The fact that you don't mind being ruled has no bearing on the desires of
*others* for freedom.

> I also want to rule myself,

You are conflicted!

> and to a great extent I do. I am opposed
> to society holding power over the individual through state, religion
> or government and I feel people should decide for themselves what kind
> of sexual love bonds they wish to form (particularly gay marriage
> right now), what a woman can do with her body, if people want to take
> substances to enhance thier consciousness, all very liberal beliefs
> and ones in keeping with respect for the personal individual.

Bully for you. Now if only you could extend that idea of freedom to allowing
people to keep what they produce you'd be a *real* liberal, not the
sham-liberal of the late twentieth century.

> But I ask you to outline for me how this transformation is going to
> take place.

Well, it starts with people not asking the government to shove other people
around in their name. Don't ask the government to build roads or do science
or run schools or print money.

> At present our economy is depend upon paper money backed
> up by nothing but the state, how is this going to be dealt with?

Damned if I know. Those bastards sure set us up for a big fall, didn't they?

> And
> as for contract laws, if someone violates a contract what am I to do?

What you would do for any thief - try to get your rightful property (back)
from him. The market will provide mechanisms for those unwilling/unable to
do this themselves.

> And if I hear a man in a house near mine, a big violent man with a
> weapons kicking the shit out of his wife what am I to do?

Get your gun. Call a security force. Jeezus, do you need a fucking handhold
to go to the bathroom too? I guess after the government takes over
*toothbrushing*, you will:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/aghd2.html

Government should come with a warning label: "Caution: Prolonged exposure to
this product will cause debilitating weakness and helplessness. After a
toxic exposure, remove patient to the fresh air of freedom and allow to
recover."

> You have been vague long enough, I want some solid answeres.

I have no plan for your life. Freedom doesn't require a PLAN. Freedom means
you do your thing and I do my thing and if we want something from each
other we make a deal.

> How in
> this state free society are we to deal with the most basic issues of:
>
> Money
> Criminal bands
> Contract law
> Roads
> Crimes and punishment
> Individuals who are clear dangers to society

I notice you leave out agriculture.

There are a lot of ideas about how these things might be provided by the
market ina free society, but no one can really know what path the market
will choose until people start buying.

> What the plan here? I heard the speech, now lets get to some planning
> now.

There is no PLAN for freedom. That's the *point*. You are so stuck in
statist ways of thinking you can't even think about living your life (and
letting other people!) without some external 'plan' for how roads are going
to get built. Is there a PLAN for how food gets farmed and distributed? No!
Do you manage to fill your belly - yes! And yet surely you rank agriculture
among the 'most basic issues' of society?

> If you are a libertian I am not impressed.

I don't expect a statist to be impressed by the idea of freedom - especially
a hypocritical one who whines about how much he loves freedom and then in
the next breath talks about people not beng 'evolved enough' to be free.

> They talk more radical
> than their policies

Weren't you the one urging a slow movement toward freedom, a gradual
emancipation?

> and as a party they have utterly failed to work
> the full implications of their message.

That is a job for individuals. And it is true that many libertarians haven't
grasped the full implications of freedom. Also true is that many/most
statists haven't grasped the full implications of embracing government.

> Essentially they are a reform
> movement which wants a reduction in state power, not an anarchist
> state.

There is no such thing as an *anarchist state*. Some members of the
Libertarian Party would be happy with a reduced state; others desire full
freedom.

> Again I crave an anarchist state and when a enough humans decide to be
> self ruling so that the state is no longer needed

When enough people realise the state is, contrary to being *neccessary*, in
fact *parasitical*, *then* we will be well on the way to a stateless
society.

> I would be very
> happy, I just happen to think I will be dead.
>
> We both utterly agree on the goal, the issue is timing.

That may be one issue; I think a more problematic one is this idea of yours
that something that is (by your admission) 'evil' and 'wrong' is
*neccessary* for society.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 2:39:56 AM6/25/04
to
Till Crueger wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:53:03 +0000, Susan Hogarth wrote:
>
>>>Again I don't like paying taxes and I find the nature of government to
>>>be evil, but it is a necessary evil at this point in history.
>>
>> I find it repellent that you think evil is neccessary.
>
> From your statements I gather that you seem to think taking away Freedom
> in any way from an individual.

What? That's not even a sentence.

> May I Quote something to you:
>
> "Prisons should exist to separate those who would violate the rights of
> others from civil society. The Constitutional rights of prisoners and
> ex-prisoners should be abridged only where it is necessary to accomplish
> this purpose."
>
> Sounds Familiar? Well, then if you say taking away freedom is evil, but
> you party says it is neccesary (the quote was taken from
> http://www.lpnc.org/issues/platform.html ) I must say that I think it
> repellent that your party considers evil neccesarry.

The first sentence is OK, but the second one is problematic. When someone
has attacked another person he has abbrogated his rights - they are not
taken awy *from* him so much as repudiated *by* him. A thief, for example,
is saying (in effect) "I do not recognize the right of humans to property."
Well, fine - the proper response to that is for people to help themselves
to (what may have been considered) his property.

>>>I deeply wish that we could live in a working anarchist state, ...
>>
>> "Anarchist state"? Perhaps if you understood what anarchy meant you
>> would not be so gloomy and despondent about the prospect of freedom.
>
> Well, so far you failed to explain it as well.

Explain anarchy, you mean? It simply means to be without a ruler.

[snip]

>>> and I
>>>believe in the greatest degree of personal freedom possible. I am
>>>opposed to almost every institution that presently exists from education
>>>to religion to 90% of law enforcement.
>>
>> You're opposed to religion and education and 'almost every institution
>> that presently exists'? You really *don't* understand freedom, do you?
>
> Well, so far you have completely failed to explain what you mean when you
> use this rather broad term "Freedom". Until you have done so, I find it
> rather pointless to accuse others of misunderstanding your meaning of this
> term.

A person is free when he is not molested by force or threat of force by
another person.

>>>I am saying that someone will always try to rule others. A state,
>>>backed up by an army and police force, provides a regular means of this.
>>
>> "Since some people are going to be asholes, we need to give them a
>> formal mechanism protected by custom and law in which to perfect their
>> assholery." Is that about it?
>
> Well, If they are assholes, then why are the majority of the people
> supporting them?

That's an excellent question. Perhaps it's because the assholes run the
schools. Perhaps it's because it's simpler to go along with the status quo.
Perhaps it's because church leaders tel people they should not rock the
boat. Perhaps it's through fear. Perhaps they are gaining some temporary
advantage from the assholes. Ther can be many reasons.

> I know this sounds rather naive as well, but there is
> more to this simple statement than meets the eye. There are enough ways to
> achieve that the people you dislike are not in office anymore. Well, at
> least in Europe there are. I know that it is a bit different in America,
> because only two parties have any real influence on the politics.

I don't want *anyone* in office. How would I achieve that if I lived in your
enlighted European state?

>>> though this is far
>>>from perfect. I imagine over the centuries we will continue the
>>>evolution of rule by thugs, which has been the human norm, to rule by
>>>elected bodies.
>>
>> i.e. '*gangs* of thugs'
>
> Well, since they are elected, that would not be their fault, but the fault
> of those who elected them.

There is something profoundly immoral about this statement. Of course voters
are complicitous in the election of jerks, but that does not make the jerk
any less responsible for his actions.

>>> I am an opptomist and I believe that Capitalism and
>>>technology will resolve the major crisis facing the provide for
>>>increasing levels of self rule of individuals through great democracy
>>>and devolution of power.
>>
>> Involuntary democracy (i.e. state democracy) is about as far from
>> self-rule as is possible. With royalty at least you only had ONE ruler -
>> with democracy everyone is your ruler!
>
> But that also means, that everyone, including you can become ruler AND
> ruled.

Another profoundly immoral statement. Why in the world would I want to rule
others?

> And that anyone can try to make the changes he deems fitting.

Other people are not your property to 'change [as you] deem fitting.'!

>>>But I am saying this is a process of reform, a great effort to work
>>>towards.
>>
>> Democracy DECREASES freedom.
>
> Uhm, you give a link to the "John Locke Foundation" on your website, but
> have you also cared to ever study the works of Locke?

Some, yes.

> This is what I found
> about Lockes Ideas:
> "Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon
> their own strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by
> entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective
> services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as
> revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are
> governed, which may be withdrawn at any time."
>
> The two most important points of this are the idea of the social contract
> and the possibility that it can be revoked.

Yes. I beleive that the idea of a social contrat is nonsense. I do think
Locke was right to point out that the *consent of the governed* was
neccessary to the legitimacy of government. Note that the statement was not
about a *majority* of the governed.

> In the social contract it is
> that the Freedom of the individual is reduced, to ensure the freedom of
> others.

Yes; this is why I beleive this to be an illegitimate idea. Your enslavement
(for that is the opposite of freedom) does not in any way *ensure* my
freedom - quite the opposite in fact!

> At some point the freedom of an individual will always interfere
> with the freedom of others.

I believe this statment to be in error. Your freedom does not at all
interfere with my freedom, nor can it. You may want to read this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html

Incidentally, while looking for that I came across this on the myth of the
social contract:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer14.html

> At this point it will always be necessary to
> reduce the freedom of one individual at cost of others. In our current
> state this is done with laws,

It's sad when the law is seen as a deliberate mechanism to reduce freedom
rather than as a guarantor or protector of freedom.

> but it might be possible that at some point
> we find a better way. If you know any such way, then let us know about it.

How about not having an institution whose *purpose* is the destruction of
individual liberty?

> The revokability of the contract is ensured by the repeated elections of
> the government officials.

So the people who vote for the 'winner' are signing a contract in the name
of the people who don't vote and those who vote for someone else? What sort
of contract is valid which one person makes in another's name against his
will?

> The contract is not completely revokable, since
> this would throw us back to the "original state of nature in which
> individuals rely upon their own strength", this state is described as
> primitive in allmost all philosophical texts dealing with the matter of
> the social contract for good reasons, and should be avoided if possible.

Can you explain this 'social contract' idea? How is it that some poeple can
decide for others what is acceptable? By what right can they do that?

> I
> can just repeat the examples of Russia and the French revolution to show
> how extreme a society can become during such moments.
>
>>>I am just wondering, what are you proposing.
>>
>> Freedom.
>
> You just managed to stay the most agreeable, by actually conveying the
> least information. The term Freedom is a term that hardly anyone can
> disagree with,

That's odd - I seem to be getting an awful lot of disagreement with it here.
Even you say we must be not-free in order to protect our freedom! That
seems a little weird to me.

> and if somebody were to disagree with it, you could rightly
> call him a fascist or Aristocrat.

An aristocrat could be perfectly pro-freedom! Aristocrat does not
neccessarily mena *ruler*; it can also mean *leader* - in the true sense of
the word - a perosn people will follow willingly.

> However at the same moment almost
> everybody has a different oppinion on how freedom should ultimately look
> like and how it should be achieved.

Sure.

>>> Do you think that Monday
>>>we should abolish all state, local, and government authority.
>>
>> No. Personally I think we should just ignore it until it goes away, but
>> assholes and parasites have a tendency to stick around long after they
>> have worn out their welcome. Probably eventually they will put up a fuss
>> about being ignored and it willbe neccessary to respnd in kind.
>
> Well, this strikes me as a rather ignorant position. If I get you right
> you are simply proposing to ignore the things one dislikes, until they go
> away on their own?

Not 'the things one dislikes' in general. Government. But perhaps you're
right - it could be seen as immoral to want to ignore the sufferings of
others under government yoke. I meant to empahsize that I am not interested
in any sort of 'overthrow' of present governments. Like Marx (or ?) I look
forward to the 'withering away of the state'.

> Well, from no on I will try your attitude, ignore the
> dirt on my floor, the stink in my toilet etc.

Don't be childish - you're making an unwarranted generalisation from my
remark. But one might choose to ignore a boor at a party in the hopes he
will become tired of annoying you and will simply go home and sober up.
That's the sort of thing I meant.

> I am sorry, but I just don't
> get the right feel of this, I personally have to know that I am taking my
> life (don't get me wrong, this is ONLY about my life, and not of others)
> into my own hands.

Good for you.

> Did I get your position right?

Not really; but that may have been my communication problem.

> Or is it rather that you are so emotionaly
> involved in this discussion, that you are simply disagreeing with anything
> your opponent is saying. Somehow from your webpage I get the idea that you
> do not at all have the tendency to simply ignore what you dislike, but
> rather do something about it.

That's a relief at least :) Yes, of course; I am 'doing something'. I simply
meant in a larger sense it might be better for people to simply stop
responding to government than to actively seek to destroy it.



>>> any policy one decides will impact
>>>others.
>>
>> That is the nature of politics - the use of force by one person or group
>> of people to get what they want from others.
>
> And it is also the nature of humankind, as described by Locke and others.
> Hence the government regulation becomes necessary, to ensure that in using
> this force, no one will harm the freedom of others.

That doesn't make sense. How can *humans* - humans who have actively sought
positions of power! - how can these humans magically transform into
government which has a different nature from the individuals which comprise
it?

> Ok, I think this is enough for one first post to a new Group. Sorry I am
> off-Topic to all those who are still reading this thread. I still think
> there are some further logical fallacies in your thinking, but I am too
> tired to point them out now. Maybe I will do so in a later post, but I
> rather doubt I will reply again in this thread.

If you've noted flaws in my logic I am all ears. I thinkt he idea of a
social contract is incredibly illogical, as is the idea of protecting
freedom by not allowing people to be free.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 9:14:33 AM6/25/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<MaLCc.74097$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

>
> > I would approve of a system of government where all laws required the
> > full consent of the governed, and I hope that technology will make
> > something like this more workable in the near future.
>
> It's not a question of technology. If the vote was 99% 'for' and 1%
> 'against', would this system you approve of recognize the right of the 1%
> to be governed under laws of their own choosing?

In my invisioned system the 1% of the individuals would have the
resources and the capacity to construct what ever living sitution they
like.

Again you and I agree on about 90%, and only differ on our assessment
of humanities current position.

I beleive that the majority should not restrict the minority in
anything other than acts that harm others. For example I support
people's rights to grow, make, and take any drugs they want, but they
can not be allowed to drive cars on roads while taking them.
Currently, sadddly, enough people can't be trusted that police are
needed. Does that mean that I think 90% of what police do is not a
waste of time and tax payers money? No.

I also think your focus on government is a bit narrow. The state is
only one institution impossing conformity upon the individual, cutlure
is much larger. In our system Capitalist institutions spend massive
sums of money to condition humans to behave in certain ways, and they
target children not old enough to decide for themselves.

Again, I am myself a radical anarchist. I think marriage is a form of
human slavery and hording of emotions, that most of our educational
system is just propaganda and mind control, I think people should be
able to invent any form of sexual bonds they desire between consenting
adults, ware what evere clothing they want, live in what ever way.

I simply differ from you on timing, I see no evidence at all that any
kind of anarchist state could function today. I think each person
needs to develop their own independence and autonomy, and that we need
to work to a culture which does not require government.

My ideas are most in line with Thereau and Iain M. Banks, but I also
have no interest to live in a log cabin and hunt rabbits, so I think
we need to create the technology base which will abolish both the need
for work and money.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 9:38:37 AM6/25/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<FCLCc.74104$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> > I prefer the
> > people I like get elected but I make no demand that this be the case.
>
> The fact that you don't mind being ruled has no bearing on the desires of
> *others* for freedom.
>


Okay susan enough fucking platitudes.

Lets say Monday morning we abolish all state authority is removed. No
more police, no more military, no more money, nothing. Everyone is
totally and utterly free to do what they want.

What happens? How does it work?

You just spout one lines about wanting to be free like some 16 year
old hippie smoking her first joint but were is the program? How do
you establish an anarchist society here and now.

I am not asking for you to come up with new insults for people to
disagree with you, I am asking for a program.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 9:46:29 AM6/25/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<tGrCc.67087$2o2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> Scotland Yard Department of Tire Mischief wrote:

> Bobby has done nothign but make a series of assumptions about what I beleive
> and think based on the fact that I'm American. He hasn't made any argument
> at all; only offered a bunch of insults and assumptions.
>
> He charges me with an 'America is best attitude', when I haven't made any
> such assertion. In fact he is the one who insists that Europe is somehow
> 'better' than America. I guess to him it is, because that's where he has
> chosen to live. So what?

I never said Europeans are better, I said they are tested more.

And I do hold your position that you simply do not care about Europe
as disturbing and arrogant given that America's culture has most of
its origins in Europe.

I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
given one.

I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
state"

I have said that I agree 100% with your goals, I only differ as to the
practicle nature of these goals. But I am getting bit tired of you
adding nothing, you just repeat yourself over and over again.

I actually am interested in reading how you think we should re-arrange
our state to get full freedom now. If you can convince me that it is
practicle I would be happy. I want what you want, I just don't
believe its possible.

I also want to live 300 years, travel to distant stars, talk with long
dead great minds, and fly like superman. I may choose these things,
but that does not make them possible. Goals require plans, just
repeating a goal over and over and over and over and over again does
not make it a plan.

What the plan Susan? Whats the plan.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 10:11:28 AM6/25/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<FCLCc.74104$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> Bully for you. Now if only you could extend that idea of freedom to allowing
> people to keep what they produce you'd be a *real* liberal, not the
> sham-liberal of the late twentieth century.
>

And I wonder how we will protect this from bands of armed gangs
without a state.


> > But I ask you to outline for me how this transformation is going to
> > take place.
>
> Well, it starts with people not asking the government to shove other people
> around in their name. Don't ask the government to build roads or do science
> or run schools or print money.
>

Right, okay, so how is money printed, how are roads made, how is crime
stopped.

People presently ask this of government because they fail to see a
workable alternative, and I fear I see none here.


> > At present our economy is depend upon paper money backed
> > up by nothing but the state, how is this going to be dealt with?
>
> Damned if I know. Those bastards sure set us up for a big fall, didn't they?
>

Paper money has been a great source of liberation of humnity. I don't
consider living off the land, working from dawn until dusk in a barter
economy as freedom.

I actually do know how we will get rid of money, but it will take a
long time for our technology to produce such surplus that money is
un-needed.

I also point out to you that your program IMPOSSES a collapse upon
everyone else. I prefer the current system, with all its evils, to
one where suddenly my money is not worth anything.

> > And
> > as for contract laws, if someone violates a contract what am I to do?
>
> What you would do for any thief - try to get your rightful property (back)
> from him. The market will provide mechanisms for those unwilling/unable to
> do this themselves.
>

And the market will also provide mechanisms for those who wish to
prevent me from getting my property back. We call the kind of
mechanism you describe organized crime.

Since you clearly have little exposure to it, and have somehow failed
to even notice how this worked in the former soviet union, I sill
little reason to point out to you, but maybe to anyone who might be
reading, that markets function on supply and demand. If a little
person with no money has had their home stolden why would the market
provide people to go in there and fight it out to get it back when the
criminals holding the house can pay more to keep it?

> > And if I hear a man in a house near mine, a big violent man with a
> > weapons kicking the shit out of his wife what am I to do?
>
> Get your gun. Call a security force. Jeezus, do you need a fucking handhold
> to go to the bathroom too? I guess after the government takes over
> *toothbrushing*, you will:
>

And for the vast majority of people who will be outgunned and not able
to afford a security force?

Look I have seen first hand this kind of state and know perfectly well
what would happen. Power would be concentrated more and more in the
hands of a few criminal organizations who will have more weapons and
be more willing to use force. In much of Russia criminal groups use
terror to control everything. People are forced to pay protection
rates much higher than any taxation in Western Europe, and only
recieve the benefit of not being attacked for it.

In time the population becomes sick of it and accepts a more
oppressive government. Freedom is a high goal of humanity, but people
generally forget about it when they see criminal bands running free in
their towns.

> Government should come with a warning label: "Caution: Prolonged exposure to
> this product will cause debilitating weakness and helplessness. After a
> toxic exposure, remove patient to the fresh air of freedom and allow to
> recover."
>

And these private armed groups that provide security services, they
will foster freedom right?

Having been to Eastern Europe and seen slave trading rings and
criminal groups rise in the collapse of the police I can not find your
point silly, because I have seen the human cost of a society which
suddenly removed any central police authority overnight.

And I agree people are dependent on government, that is a fact. We
need to evolve ourselves and our cultures to be free of it and this
will take time.


> > You have been vague long enough, I want some solid answeres.
>
> I have no plan for your life. Freedom doesn't require a PLAN. Freedom means
> you do your thing and I do my thing and if we want something from each
> other we make a deal.
>

This is all just fancy vague talk.

You are talking about abolishing government, this would be the
greatest event in human history and impact the lives of ever living
person. We need a plan.

You throw the term freedom around so much I now see it doesn't even
have a meaning for you. Freedom to go to a protection racket, freedom
to hire private armed gaurds to protect you, and yet you have no idea
how money is going to be made and how these private agencies will get
paid.

I'll tell you how they will get paid, because I have seen money
collapse. They will first take things from people, and than when
everything is theres the protect rackets, which will generally work
together, will than start taking people. In Eastern Europe the trade
is generally in children and women, who work as slaves throughout
Europe.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 11:41:44 AM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<FCLCc.74104$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
>> > I prefer the
>> > people I like get elected but I make no demand that this be the case.
>>
>> The fact that you don't mind being ruled has no bearing on the desires of
>> *others* for freedom.
>
> Okay susan enough fucking platitudes.
>
> Lets say Monday morning we abolish all state authority is removed. No
> more police, no more military, no more money, nothing. Everyone is
> totally and utterly free to do what they want.

You mean "NO more STATE police, no more STATE military, no more STATE
money." The things people desire and create will not simply disappear
because the daddy-state is no longer churning them out.

> What happens? How does it work?

What do I look like - a fortune-teller? Didn't Leto say something about
humans demanding to know the future? Here's the thing: it's not a choice
between different visions of the future - because that's all they can be -
visions. It's a choice between different NOWs, because the NOW is the only
time we directly control.

I beleive that is freedom is chosen in the present, people will be better
off in the future.

> You just spout one lines about wanting to be free like some 16 year
> old hippie smoking her first joint but were is the program? How do
> you establish an anarchist society here and now.
>
> I am not asking for you to come up with new insults for people to
> disagree with you, I am asking for a program.

There is no PROGRAM for freedom. What you want is some guarantee that no one
will be hurt; that the roads will continue to roll and the welfare checks
will still go in the mail without the state. That's not how freedom works.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 11:54:38 AM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

[...]


> I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
> given one.
>
> I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
> state"

Wow - how can you keep missing the point so badly? I'm not proposing any
sort of 'state', and I'm not proposing to become a minter of coins, either.
How money becomes available in a free society will be a matter for the
market to decide.

It's like asking Linus Torvalds "How will Linux look in the next five
years?" Well, you know - there are MANY Linuxes, and Torvalds isn't
directing their creation. There will likely be several monies in a free
society, and users will decide which they prefer. Standards will probably
arise.

> I have said that I agree 100% with your goals,

I doubt it. You speak of capitalism as if it was a threat to humanity, and
you use the same dispapproving tone of voluntary social institutions like
marriage. I don't share your hatred of voluntary social organization - only
the imposed order/disorder of the state.

> I only differ as to the
> practicle nature of these goals. But I am getting bit tired of you
> adding nothing, you just repeat yourself over and over again.

I can't tell you what the future will look like, and that is what you want.
I could lie and create some stupid five-year plan in the manner of
politicians, but that would be wrong.

> I actually am interested in reading how you think we should re-arrange
> our state to get full freedom now.

Re-arranging the state will never give full freedom. The state ought to be
reduced whenever and however much possible until it's gone.

> If you can convince me that it is
> practicle I would be happy. I want what you want, I just don't
> believe its possible.

Fine. Go back to your tax counselors and send your children to public
schools to learn how wonderful the state is and how it provides for al of
us. Other people will start thinking for themselves and not demanding to
have the future laid out in five-year-plans before they feel bold enough to
imagine a world where someone other than the government strikes the coins.

> I also want to live 300 years, travel to distant stars, talk with long
> dead great minds, and fly like superman. I may choose these things,
> but that does not make them possible.

They are not possible AT ALL (now). Freedom *is* possible - now. Do I have a
*plan* for it - no? The plan you want isn't how to *achieve* freedom - it's
how to live with it afterwards (you keep bleating pitibibly 'who will build
the roads?'). Freedom will come when people no longer accept that the state
has the right to rule them. After that the future is blissfully and
wonderfully uncertain.

> Goals require plans, just
> repeating a goal over and over and over and over and over again does
> not make it a plan.
>
> What the plan Susan? Whats the plan.

Freedom IS the plan. The way to get there is to reject state authority. What
you do once there is up to you.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 11:57:42 AM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<FCLCc.74104$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
>> Bully for you. Now if only you could extend that idea of freedom to
>> allowing people to keep what they produce you'd be a *real* liberal, not
>> the sham-liberal of the late twentieth century.
>
> And I wonder how we will protect this from bands of armed gangs
> without a state.

Oh, poor baby! Who will protect us from Bad Men?! Oh, wait - we'll get our
own Bad Men, and let THEM rule us. Fool.

Here's some suggestions (NOT a 'plan') about the private production of
defense in a market society:

[I don't have time to hunt the reference. Look for a paper by Hoppe called
'The private production of defense']

[snip the rest of the whining]

Till Crueger

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 11:11:50 AM6/25/04
to
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:39:56 +0000, Susan Hogarth wrote:

>> From your statements I gather that you seem to think taking away Freedom
>> in any way from an individual.
>
> What? That's not even a sentence.

Sorry, my fault. It seems I was too tired yesterday to complete the
sentence. I meant to say that I thought you propably find it evil to take
away freedom.



>> May I Quote something to you:
>>
>> "Prisons should exist to separate those who would violate the rights of
>> others from civil society. The Constitutional rights of prisoners and
>> ex-prisoners should be abridged only where it is necessary to accomplish
>> this purpose."
>>
>> Sounds Familiar? Well, then if you say taking away freedom is evil, but
>> you party says it is neccesary (the quote was taken from
>> http://www.lpnc.org/issues/platform.html ) I must say that I think it
>> repellent that your party considers evil neccesarry.
>
> The first sentence is OK, but the second one is problematic. When someone
> has attacked another person he has abbrogated his rights - they are not
> taken awy *from* him so much as repudiated *by* him. A thief, for example,
> is saying (in effect) "I do not recognize the right of humans to property."
> Well, fine - the proper response to that is for people to help themselves
> to (what may have been considered) his property.

well, this way you simply move the responsibility. Now there has to be
someone who has to decide, and find out who has effectively abrogated his
rights. Hence you again need some kind of police force (not neccesarily
government police) and soon you need to find out someone else if this
police force has abrogated their rights, for example by becoming corrupt.
Soon from what was a idea to abolish the system you have begun to
re-create it.

>> Well, so far you failed to explain it as well.
>
> Explain anarchy, you mean? It simply means to be without a ruler.

well, I meant to say how you would suppose things would get organized when
we have a state of Anarchy. All I know is the nice phrase "The market will
find a solution". Well, for me this reminds me a lot of the old phrase
"God will take care of you", except that your god is the market instead. I
know enough about problems of a free market, and other chaotic systems, to
be rather sceptical when someone issues a statement like the one above.

>> Well, If they are assholes, then why are the majority of the people
>> supporting them?
>
> That's an excellent question. Perhaps it's because the assholes run the
> schools. Perhaps it's because it's simpler to go along with the status quo.
> Perhaps it's because church leaders tel people they should not rock the
> boat. Perhaps it's through fear. Perhaps they are gaining some temporary
> advantage from the assholes. Ther can be many reasons.

So, if there are many reasons, then it is the people's FREE choice to find
those reasons more valid than your reasons to abolish the state. How can
you be so aristocratic as to want to force them to give up something that
has been their choice?

>> I know this sounds rather naive as well, but there is
>> more to this simple statement than meets the eye. There are enough ways to
>> achieve that the people you dislike are not in office anymore. Well, at
>> least in Europe there are. I know that it is a bit different in America,
>> because only two parties have any real influence on the politics.
>
> I don't want *anyone* in office. How would I achieve that if I lived in your
> enlighted European state?

For a while we actually had a anarchist Party here in Germany. That would
be a way to achieve what you want. You'd just have to get the necessary
support. This party didn't make it very far. It seems like the values of
freedom are unfortunately not valued as much by others, ot they would have
gotten more support. I find it rather extreme to want to force your value
system onto those who don't have it.

>> Well, since they are elected, that would not be their fault, but the fault
>> of those who elected them.
>
> There is something profoundly immoral about this statement. Of course voters
> are complicitous in the election of jerks, but that does not make the jerk
> any less responsible for his actions.

Well, if you are entiteld by someone to do something in his name, and you
carry out the task in his name, then you are not as responsible for your
actions as you were before. If someone is sheepishly enough to give you
the right to do anything in his name, then in my opinion he also should
face the consequences.

>> But that also means, that everyone, including you can become ruler AND
>> ruled.
>
> Another profoundly immoral statement. Why in the world would I want to rule
> others?

Well, you already do. By wanting to make others free, you are making a
decission for them. If you do not want to be ruled by others, but want
others to be free, there are ways to do it. You could move to a small
island and declare it your own free country. Or you could declare your
house and your property an independent country. You are very free to do
so. And others, including the American government are very free to simply
ignore this declaration of independence. Well, they would revoke their
right to their independence at the same moment, but this is in this case
not a deep problem, since in the world you want property means power, and
they simply have more property than anyone else.



>> And that anyone can try to make the changes he deems fitting.
>
> Other people are not your property to 'change [as you] deem fitting.'!

I was not refering to changes to other people, but to changes to the
system. As for changes to other people I agree with you, they are not for
me to change.

>> The two most important points of this are the idea of the social contract
>> and the possibility that it can be revoked.
>
> Yes. I beleive that the idea of a social contrat is nonsense. I do think
> Locke was right to point out that the *consent of the governed* was
> neccessary to the legitimacy of government. Note that the statement was not
> about a *majority* of the governed.

I know it was not about the majority. However in practice one has to find
a way to make a system that is as close as possible, without leaving out
practical considerations.



>> In the social contract it is
>> that the Freedom of the individual is reduced, to ensure the freedom of
>> others.
>
> Yes; this is why I beleive this to be an illegitimate idea. Your enslavement
> (for that is the opposite of freedom) does not in any way *ensure* my
> freedom - quite the opposite in fact!

Well, I see it as my freedom to enslave you. I will never make any use of
this freedom, and I am happy that for now the law keeps me from ever doing
so. But in this way the reduction of my freedom to enslave you, ensures
that your freedom not to be enslaved is still granted.



>> At some point the freedom of an individual will always interfere
>> with the freedom of others.
>
> I believe this statment to be in error. Your freedom does not at all
> interfere with my freedom, nor can it. You may want to read this:
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html

I will quote something from the essay I find rather interessting:
"but I may not, consistent with a property principle, intrude upon your
property"
In my definition Freedom means to be allowed to do anything one is able
to. Any statement which includes something "I may not" or "You are not
allowed to" reduces freedom. The article simply circumvents this idea, by
defining what is part of your freedom and what is not. Well, this again is
simply a shift. Now we don't need someone to reduce our freedom, but we
need someone who is able to define what is part of our freedom and what is
not. For practical consideration this is the same. However I find it
rather extreme to allow someone elese to interfere with my definition of
the words I want to use. I find it less disturbing to allow some authority
to reduce my freedom, than to allow it to define what freedom means to me.

> Incidentally, while looking for that I came across this on the myth of the
> social contract:
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer14.html

He has a good point, in saying that the social contract is not a real
contract. However is wrong in assuming that it was ever meant to be a
real. It is a theoretical idea. He assumes the US-Constitution is the
actual social contract of the American people, but this is not the case.
The constitution is merely an object to ensure that the social contract
can exist.

>> At this point it will always be necessary to
>> reduce the freedom of one individual at cost of others. In our current
>> state this is done with laws,
>
> It's sad when the law is seen as a deliberate mechanism to reduce freedom
> rather than as a guarantor or protector of freedom.

Is it not ever possible for you to see it as both at the same time? This
is one of the main statements I was trying to bring forth.

>> but it might be possible that at some point
>> we find a better way. If you know any such way, then let us know about it.
>
> How about not having an institution whose *purpose* is the destruction of
> individual liberty?

I meant a way to ensure that in this situation property rights are
ensured. And with that I meant more than religious propagandistic phrases
like "The market will take care of it". I am asking you to propose a
system that will ensure I get not killed, still can by the things I want,
and to ensure my property stays my property. And BTW, i am a pacifist, so
don't even think about anything like: Well, you'd have to get a gun, to
defend yourself. Because it is my freedom not to ever take a gun and I
don't want this freedom to be breached by others.

>> The revokability of the contract is ensured by the repeated elections of
>> the government officials.
>
> So the people who vote for the 'winner' are signing a contract in the name
> of the people who don't vote and those who vote for someone else? What sort
> of contract is valid which one person makes in another's name against his
> will?

Those who don't vote obviously don't care. Otherwise they would vote. If
they don't think there is anyone to vote for, that is their fault as well,
because they could still found their own party and run for office
themselves. As for those who don't agree with the majority I also think
that this is a small problem. However as far as I can see the consequences
of this small problem are not as grave as the consequences of abolishing
the system altogether. However if you have any better system, to ensure
those voters are also taken into account, then I will still be happy to
hear it.

>> Well, this strikes me as a rather ignorant position. If I get you right
>> you are simply proposing to ignore the things one dislikes, until they go
>> away on their own?
>
> Not 'the things one dislikes' in general. Government. But perhaps you're
> right - it could be seen as immoral to want to ignore the sufferings of
> others under government yoke. I meant to empahsize that I am not interested
> in any sort of 'overthrow' of present governments. Like Marx (or ?) I look
> forward to the 'withering away of the state'.

So then where is your problem in the discussion with bobby? He simply
stated that he thinks that at a later point in our Human evolution we will
be able to get away from our government to a more anarchistic/free state
of being. This seems to me a lot like your idea of the withering away of
the state.

>> And it is also the nature of humankind, as described by Locke and others.
>> Hence the government regulation becomes necessary, to ensure that in using
>> this force, no one will harm the freedom of others.
>
> That doesn't make sense. How can *humans* - humans who have actively sought
> positions of power! - how can these humans magically transform into
> government which has a different nature from the individuals which comprise
> it?

There is a nice statement for this "Quis custodes ipse custodies?". Who
will watch over those, who watch over others. For this there should be a
system of checks and balances inside the government. From what I know
about the American government however this system is rather crude. Again I
can only say that in Europe it is much more balanced. As for your question
why the humans who constitute government transform so magically: As soon
as you closely watch someone, they start to behave a lot better. If you
don't have a method to watch your official then there is a big problem in
your system.


As for how to achieve freedom, I try the task a bit differently. I try to
get people to think about their ideas of freedom, and that there are
always different ideas to anything. I hope that one day there will be
enought people to actually want to be free, and I try to get as many to
think about the possibilities they haven't even begun to see. I joined the
discussion with you, because I like quite a few of your ideas, and I think
as far as your general goal is concerned i don't disagree with you that
much. However when it comes to how this goal should be reached, there is a
lot of disagreement.

Till Crueger

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 1:47:33 PM6/25/04
to
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:54:38 +0000, Susan Hogarth wrote:

> It's like asking Linus Torvalds "How will Linux look in the next five
> years?" Well, you know - there are MANY Linuxes, and Torvalds isn't
> directing their creation. There will likely be several monies in a free
> society, and users will decide which they prefer. Standards will probably
> arise.


Uhm I have to say you are rather mistaken at your point about Linux. Linux
development works in quite a different way then you think, at least as
long as you don't branch the main source tree. And by the way, there is
only ONE Linux, there may be many Linux distributions and quite a few
unofficial patches, but there is only, and will ever be one Linux.

When you write an addition to the kernel, you submit it, and then Linus
ultimately decides wether he includes your patch or doesn't. When you were
to ask Linus what Linux would look like five years from now, he could at
least tell you that it would still be POSIX compliant.
You used this example to show how the free market would care to evolve
standarts. I am sorry, but this is not what happened with Linux. It was
designed from the beginning on to follow a standart not to give birth to a
new standart.

If you want to have examples from the computer science section where the
free market did not work, I have quite a few examples:

The ussual example i can give is the one of MS. When there is a standart,
that has freely evolved, it usually goes like this:
1. Using their monopoly MS pushes their own standart on the market, so
that other non-MS systems don't work correctely.

2. As soon as there is a free implementation of the MS version of the
standart MS goes and changes it. Thus they achieve that it is almost
impossible to use non MS products, and to FORCE their users to upgrade.

3. They spread FUD (Fear uncertainty and doubt) about other products. The
mindcontrol methods used by big companies are usually much worse than the
mindcontrol methods used by government agencies. While the legitimacy of
both form of mindcontrol is quite debatable, I must say, that I feel much
better when I have a control over the person who tries to brainwash me. If
they belong to a company I have hardly any form of control. If the belong
to the government I can get rid of them and elect someone else.

The Problem with this is, that if a Company like MS controlls a aspect of
your life almost exclusevly, they have absolute power over that aspect. I
don't know about you, but too me this idea of absolute power sounds much
more aristocratic, than the form of reduced and balanced power exerted by
a government. At least then I can see what they are doing, and take
appropriate action, which I can not with big companies in a anarchistic
state.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 4:00:02 PM6/25/04
to
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:47:33 +0200, in article
<cbhe1d$11qq$1...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>, Till Crueger wrote:
>
>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:54:38 +0000, Susan Hogarth wrote:
>
>> It's like asking Linus Torvalds "How will Linux look in the next five
>> years?" Well, you know - there are MANY Linuxes, and Torvalds isn't
>> directing their creation. There will likely be several monies in a free
>> society, and users will decide which they prefer. Standards will probably
>> arise.
>
>Uhm I have to say you are rather mistaken at your point about Linux. Linux
>development works in quite a different way then you think, at least as
>long as you don't branch the main source tree. And by the way, there is
>only ONE Linux, there may be many Linux distributions and quite a few
>unofficial patches, but there is only, and will ever be one Linux.

All right; I thought I'd get called on that :) I was referring only to
distributions, but your point about control of the kernel is well made.

[...]

>If you want to have examples from the computer science section where the
>free market did not work, I have quite a few examples:
>
>The ussual example i can give is the one of MS. When there is a standart,
>that has freely evolved, it usually goes like this:
>1. Using their monopoly MS pushes their own standart on the market, so
>that other non-MS systems don't work correctely.

How can MS make sure that 'other non-MS systems don't work correctly'? MY non-MS
systems seem to me to work just fine.

>2. As soon as there is a free implementation of the MS version of the
>standart MS goes and changes it. Thus they achieve that it is almost
>impossible to use non MS products, and to FORCE their users to upgrade.

This is simply not true. No one is *forced* to do anything. Many companies and
individuals are leaving MS for just the heavy-handed tactics you mention. The
others obviously are satisfied with the situation they have - for now.

>3. They spread FUD (Fear uncertainty and doubt) about other products.

Just as their competitors do about MS products. I hear all the time about how
'insecure' MS products are. People must in the final analaysi simply make up
their own minds.

> The
>mindcontrol methods used by big companies are usually much worse than the
>mindcontrol methods used by government agencies.

I think 'mindcontrol' is a bit hysterical; but the state has the effrontery to
FORCE (I mean really force - when was the last time MS put someone in jail for
deciding to buy another product?) you to pay for *their* advertising (which is
what you seem to mean by the term 'mindcontrol').

> While the legitimacy of
>both form of mindcontrol is quite debatable, I must say, that I feel much
>better when I have a control over the person who tries to brainwash me. If
>they belong to a company I have hardly any form of control. If the belong
>to the government I can get rid of them and elect someone else.

Your idea that you have control over the government is sheer illusion. If the
government wants to raise your taxes, you have one three-hundred-millionth voice
in saying 'no'. When Microsoft raises prices for *its* services, you can simply
shop elsewhere. THAT is really having control.

>The Problem with this is, that if a Company like MS controlls a aspect of
>your life almost exclusevly, they have absolute power over that aspect. I
>don't know about you, but too me this idea of absolute power sounds much
>more aristocratic, than the form of reduced and balanced power exerted by
>a government. At least then I can see what they are doing, and take
>appropriate action, which I can not with big companies in a anarchistic
>state.

There is no such thing as an 'anarchistic state' - that's a contradiction in
terms. What I think you're missing is that in situations where large companies
have bullied small ones, it has almost always been WITH government collusion.
For instance, large gun dealers *FAVORED* a higher regulatory burden on gun
purchases *BECAUSE* the burden fell disproporitonately on smalled gun dealers
and forced many of them out of the market.

The state wants to control ALL aspects of you life.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 4:45:18 PM6/25/04
to

Yes - to the individual. That is it exactly.

[snip]

>>> Well, so far you failed to explain it as well.
>>
>> Explain anarchy, you mean? It simply means to be without a ruler.
>
>well, I meant to say how you would suppose things would get organized when
>we have a state of Anarchy. All I know is the nice phrase "The market will
>find a solution". Well, for me this reminds me a lot of the old phrase
>"God will take care of you", except that your god is the market instead. I
>know enough about problems of a free market, and other chaotic systems, to
>be rather sceptical when someone issues a statement like the one above.

Different people will seek and find different solutions (to the problems of
justice, security, etc). There is no need - and indeed it is undesirable - for
everyone to have the same solution. That is monopoly, and we know that
monopolies are bad.

>>> Well, If they are assholes, then why are the majority of the people
>>> supporting them?
>>
>> That's an excellent question. Perhaps it's because the assholes run the
>> schools. Perhaps it's because it's simpler to go along with the status quo.
>> Perhaps it's because church leaders tel people they should not rock the
>> boat. Perhaps it's through fear. Perhaps they are gaining some temporary
>> advantage from the assholes. Ther can be many reasons.
>
>So, if there are many reasons, then it is the people's FREE choice to find
>those reasons more valid than your reasons to abolish the state.

Indeed - as long as their state does not aggress against another. They have no
right to aggress against another; either personally or through the agency of the
state.

You can choose freely to pay taxes if you wish. But if you vote to throw someone
who refuses to pay them into jail, you are agressing against that person.

> How can
>you be so aristocratic as to want to force them to give up something that
>has been their choice?

I don't want to force anyone to give up anything. I simply want them to stop
forcing others to participate in their state unwillingly.

>>> I know this sounds rather naive as well, but there is
>>> more to this simple statement than meets the eye. There are enough ways to
>>> achieve that the people you dislike are not in office anymore. Well, at
>>> least in Europe there are. I know that it is a bit different in America,
>>> because only two parties have any real influence on the politics.
>>
>> I don't want *anyone* in office. How would I achieve that if I lived in your
>> enlighted European state?
>
>For a while we actually had a anarchist Party here in Germany. That would
>be a way to achieve what you want. You'd just have to get the necessary
>support.

Why? Do I have to get a majority vote in order ot go the church I like (assuming
I liked any)? Do I need a majority vote to get the restaurants I like? Why
should I need a majority vote to get freedom? Doesn't that make the minority the
slaves of the majority?

> This party didn't make it very far. It seems like the values of
>freedom are unfortunately not valued as much by others, ot they would have
>gotten more support. I find it rather extreme to want to force your value
>system onto those who don't have it.

Then you are opposed to taxation as well? I am delighted to hear it.

>>> Well, since they are elected, that would not be their fault, but the fault
>>> of those who elected them.
>>
>> There is something profoundly immoral about this statement. Of course voters
>> are complicitous in the election of jerks, but that does not make the jerk
>> any less responsible for his actions.
>
>Well, if you are entiteld by someone to do something in his name, and you
>carry out the task in his name, then you are not as responsible for your
>actions as you were before.

Of course you are. "I was just doing my job" was dismissed as an excuse at
Nurenburg. Do you find it an acceptable one?

> If someone is sheepishly enough to give you
>the right to do anything in his name,

People cannot give rights they do not posses to others. No one has the right to
rule over another.

> then in my opinion he also should
>face the consequences.

This is true. Those whovote for tyrants are also complicitous in their actions.
That does not lessen the responsibility of the tyrant one bit, though.

>>> But that also means, that everyone, including you can become ruler AND
>>> ruled.
>>
>> Another profoundly immoral statement. Why in the world would I want to rule
>> others?
>
>Well, you already do. By wanting to make others free, you are making a
>decission for them.

Where have I advocated forcing others to be free?

> If you do not want to be ruled by others, but want
>others to be free, there are ways to do it. You could move to a small
>island and declare it your own free country.

I want to be free in my own home.

> Or you could declare your
>house and your property an independent country. You are very free to do
>so.

So you think that when I was jailed for 'tax evasion' that would be an
unwarranted aggression from the surrounding state? I am very glad to hear you
say this.

> And others, including the American government are very free to simply
>ignore this declaration of independence.

They are free to do so, but they would be wrong to do so.

> Well, they would revoke their
>right to their independence at the same moment,

Rights cannot be 'revoked' by the state because they are not granted by the
state. Privileges are granted. Freedom is a right, not a privilege.

> but this is in this case
>not a deep problem, since in the world you want property means power, and
>they simply have more property than anyone else.

All I want is power (ownership) over *my* property - first and foremost my own
physical self.

>>> And that anyone can try to make the changes he deems fitting.
>>
>> Other people are not your property to 'change [as you] deem fitting.'!
>
>I was not refering to changes to other people, but to changes to the
>system.

I don't want to change government so much as I want to be left alone by it.

> As for changes to other people I agree with you, they are not for
>me to change.

Good. Then you are against public mandatory schooling?

>>> The two most important points of this are the idea of the social contract
>>> and the possibility that it can be revoked.
>>
>> Yes. I beleive that the idea of a social contrat is nonsense. I do think
>> Locke was right to point out that the *consent of the governed* was
>> neccessary to the legitimacy of government. Note that the statement was not
>> about a *majority* of the governed.
>
>I know it was not about the majority. However in practice one has to find
>a way to make a system that is as close as possible, without leaving out
>practical considerations.

So you have an idea (social contract) which is not possible to attain, and yet
you want to get 'as close as practically possible'. Sounds utopian to me.

>>> In the social contract it is
>>> that the Freedom of the individual is reduced, to ensure the freedom of
>>> others.
>>
>> Yes; this is why I beleive this to be an illegitimate idea. Your enslavement
>> (for that is the opposite of freedom) does not in any way *ensure* my
>> freedom - quite the opposite in fact!
>
>Well, I see it as my freedom to enslave you. I will never make any use of
>this freedom,

Do you mean you will vote against the draft or any form of compulsory service?
Mandatory schooling? Taxes? That is good to hear.

> and I am happy that for now the law keeps me from ever doing
>so.

Oh, please. The state's laws hardly protect one against enslavement. In the US,
half one's income goes to others.

> But in this way the reduction of my freedom to enslave you, ensures
>that your freedom not to be enslaved is still granted.

Then why are taxes at 50%? Wy can't I *legally* take a job for $2/hour? How is
that *free*, exactly?

>>> At some point the freedom of an individual will always interfere
>>> with the freedom of others.
>>
>> I believe this statment to be in error. Your freedom does not at all
>> interfere with my freedom, nor can it. You may want to read this:
>>
>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html
>
>I will quote something from the essay I find rather interessting:
>"but I may not, consistent with a property principle, intrude upon your
>property"
>In my definition Freedom means to be allowed to do anything one is able
>to.

Yes, of course. You are *free* to be a thief, but by becoming one, you announce
ot the world that you do not beleive in property, and anything you consider
'yours' is up for grabs.

> Any statement which includes something "I may not" or "You are not
>allowed to" reduces freedom.

The poitn is that only by respecting the person and property of others can you
legitimately assert the same respect *from* others. That is what the added
phrase 'consistent with a property principle' refers to.

> The article simply circumvents this idea, by
>defining what is part of your freedom and what is not.

"Consistent with a property principle'. You are free to not recognize property,
in which case others will surely act consistently with your disrespect of
property and take back what you have stolen, with interest.

> Well, this again is
>simply a shift. Now we don't need someone to reduce our freedom, but we
>need someone who is able to define what is part of our freedom and what is
>not. For practical consideration this is the same. However I find it
>rather extreme to allow someone elese to interfere with my definition of
>the words I want to use. I find it less disturbing to allow some authority
>to reduce my freedom, than to allow it to define what freedom means to me.

That's bizarre!

>> Incidentally, while looking for that I came across this on the myth of the
>> social contract:
>>
>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer14.html
>
>He has a good point, in saying that the social contract is not a real
>contract. However is wrong in assuming that it was ever meant to be a
>real. It is a theoretical idea.

It is a *false* idea. The number 'one' is 'just an idea', but it is a true and
meaningful idea. The 'social contract' is a false, meaningless, and destructive
idea.

> He assumes the US-Constitution is the
>actual social contract of the American people, but this is not the case.
>The constitution is merely an object to ensure that the social contract
>can exist.

But you just said the social contract DOESN'T exist!

>>> At this point it will always be necessary to
>>> reduce the freedom of one individual at cost of others. In our current
>>> state this is done with laws,
>>
>> It's sad when the law is seen as a deliberate mechanism to reduce freedom
>> rather than as a guarantor or protector of freedom.
>
>Is it not ever possible for you to see it as both at the same time?

No. That would be like imagining 'dry water'.

> This
>is one of the main statements I was trying to bring forth.

Yes, and two contradictory things cannot both be true. We cannot be not-free and
free at the same time.

>>> but it might be possible that at some point
>>> we find a better way. If you know any such way, then let us know about it.
>>
>> How about not having an institution whose *purpose* is the destruction of
>> individual liberty?
>
>I meant a way to ensure that in this situation property rights are
>ensured. And with that I meant more than religious propagandistic phrases
>like "The market will take care of it". I am asking you to propose a
>system that will ensure I get not killed, still can by the things I want,
>and to ensure my property stays my property.

There is no such system. It's a utopian dream to imagine that something exists
or can exist which will "ensure I get not killed, still can by the things I
want, and to ensure my property stays my property." There will ALWAYS be people
who prefer to live by violence than by labor - no system of governance will
change that. *Self*-goverance will minimise that by making people primarily
responsible for their own lives, but it will never end human aggression. Only a
change in the nature of humanity could do such a thing.

> And BTW, i am a pacifist, so
>don't even think about anything like: Well, you'd have to get a gun, to
>defend yourself. Because it is my freedom not to ever take a gun and I
>don't want this freedom to be breached by others.

Fine. But I find it odd that a pacifist would want others to carry guns to
protect him, but refuses to protect himself. As a pacifist, I would imagine you
would prefer that the government *not* take up arms in your defense, since you
refuse to do so out of principle.

>>> The revokability of the contract is ensured by the repeated elections of
>>> the government officials.
>>
>> So the people who vote for the 'winner' are signing a contract in the name
>> of the people who don't vote and those who vote for someone else? What sort
>> of contract is valid which one person makes in another's name against his
>> will?
>
>Those who don't vote obviously don't care. Otherwise they would vote.

That's false. Many people consider voting immoral. Beleive me, they care! But
just as you will not pick up a gun to defend yourself because you beleive it is
wrong, many people will not use a ballot for the same reason. As a pacifist you
ought to understand that.

> If
>they don't think there is anyone to vote for, that is their fault as well,
>because they could still found their own party and run for office
>themselves.

Some people have better things to do with their time than pound their head on a
brick wall.

> As for those who don't agree with the majority I also think
>that this is a small problem.

Just a small one? Waht is the majority votes for concentration camps? Is it then
more than a 'small problem'?

> However as far as I can see the consequences
>of this small problem are not as grave as the consequences of abolishing
>the system altogether.

Forget abolishing. What about an 'opt-out' of the system? Woudl you favor that?

> However if you have any better system, to ensure
>those voters are also taken into account, then I will still be happy to
>hear it.

End voting. Then everyone has an equal voice.

>>> Well, this strikes me as a rather ignorant position. If I get you right
>>> you are simply proposing to ignore the things one dislikes, until they go
>>> away on their own?
>>
>> Not 'the things one dislikes' in general. Government. But perhaps you're
>> right - it could be seen as immoral to want to ignore the sufferings of
>> others under government yoke. I meant to empahsize that I am not interested
>> in any sort of 'overthrow' of present governments. Like Marx (or ?) I look
>> forward to the 'withering away of the state'.
>
>So then where is your problem in the discussion with bobby? He simply
>stated that he thinks that at a later point in our Human evolution we will
>be able to get away from our government to a more anarchistic/free state
>of being. This seems to me a lot like your idea of the withering away of
>the state.

He beleives the state is *neccessary*. I think that so far from being
neccessary, it is immoral and a great harm to many people. I would be satisfied
with a simple 'opt-out' option - why is it, do you suppose, that governments
never allow that sort of thing? (and I don't mean moving elsewhere).

>>> And it is also the nature of humankind, as described by Locke and others.
>>> Hence the government regulation becomes necessary, to ensure that in using
>>> this force, no one will harm the freedom of others.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense. How can *humans* - humans who have actively sought
>> positions of power! - how can these humans magically transform into
>> government which has a different nature from the individuals which comprise
>> it?
>
>There is a nice statement for this "Quis custodes ipse custodies?". Who
>will watch over those, who watch over others. For this there should be a
>system of checks and balances inside the government.

You can't have 'checks' on a system that are WITHIN the system. This is probably
the greatest most destructive myth taught in American public schools.

> From what I know
>about the American government however this system is rather crude.

It is impossible.

> Again I
>can only say that in Europe it is much more balanced.

I am delighted to hear it. It is still an illusory idea that checks on a system
can come from within the system.

> As for your question
>why the humans who constitute government transform so magically: As soon
>as you closely watch someone, they start to behave a lot better. If you
>don't have a method to watch your official then there is a big problem in
>your system.

The media are often tapped for that job. If, say, Clinton or Bush was acting on
their 'best behavior' while in the White House, they must be monsters in
private!

>As for how to achieve freedom, I try the task a bit differently. I try to
>get people to think about their ideas of freedom,

That is exactly what I am doing.

> and that there are
>always different ideas to anything.

Yes of course.

> I hope that one day there will be
>enought people to actually want to be free, and I try to get as many to
>think about the possibilities they haven't even begun to see.

Indeed, that is my hope and expectation as well.

> I joined the
>discussion with you, because I like quite a few of your ideas, and I think
>as far as your general goal is concerned i don't disagree with you that
>much. However when it comes to how this goal should be reached, there is a
>lot of disagreement.

I haven't given specifics except to say 'as soon as possible, and in any
nonaggressive way possible'. I would think a pacifist could get behind that. You
might think about the paradox of democracy, though. Democracy as a political
system can NEVER be compatible with individual liberty.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 7:19:42 PM6/25/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<2oUCc.74133$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
> > given one.
> >
> > I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
> > state"
>
> Wow - how can you keep missing the point so badly? I'm not proposing any
> sort of 'state', and I'm not proposing to become a minter of coins, either.
> How money becomes available in a free society will be a matter for the
> market to decide.
>

But a market of our complexity requires currency. Imagine if
everything had to be bartered, it would radically slow the economy as
the value of a pencil I have was negotiated against a candy bar the
shop owner has.

Every advanced society has a state backed up currency because it
simply makes good economic sense in our current economy.


> It's like asking Linus Torvalds "How will Linux look in the next five
> years?" Well, you know - there are MANY Linuxes, and Torvalds isn't
> directing their creation. There will likely be several monies in a free
> society, and users will decide which they prefer. Standards will probably
> arise.
>

There is likely to be utter chaos as one morning in your free society
every company and person wakes up to find that the money they have in
their bank accounts is now no longer worth anything accept the paper
it is printed on.

The ensuing chaos of a sudden disillusionment of the state would be so
catastrophic there would not be time for seperate money systems to
evolve.

The fact is simple, you have no idea how money would work. Frankly
our current Capitalist society is utterly dependent upon the state to
issue and insure the value of money and would collapse otherwise.

I invision a society free of both state and money, but I know it will
take a very very long time until it can be achieved.

I also point out that you are yourself calling for the imposition of a
political reality upon people, a radical one in which you yourself can
only vaguely invision possible solutions which you can not state.
Saying we should abolish the state now and money will somehow be dealt
with in several possible ways is no answer at all. I have contracts
that I owe and people who owe me money, with that I pay rent, pay the
people in my company, and purchase goods and services. If suddenly
the money in all our accounts was declared valueless there would not
be time to evolve several money systems.

What I suggest you do is go off with some people who believe like you
and create some systems. If you create your own isolated economy
without money then you don't have to pay any taxes. If you grow your
own food and make your own things and barter between each other than
you can live entirely tax free.

And you won't be demanding the rest of society go along with you on
your experiment. You can try it yourself. Almost certainly you would
utterly fail to make it work. Maybe you could even just think about
how 100 people in an isolated area could live utterly free of
government, and give us the details rather than talking about Linux,
because frankly the future of an OS system and the fate of global
monetary system are far from analogious.


> > I have said that I agree 100% with your goals,
>
> I doubt it. You speak of capitalism as if it was a threat to humanity, and
> you use the same dispapproving tone of voluntary social institutions like
> marriage. I don't share your hatred of voluntary social organization - only
> the imposed order/disorder of the state.

I have said I support people's rights to enter in to any type of love
bond they select, including marriage. I am opposed to an impossed
system of singular bonds across a culture.

I also do not see Capitalism as a threat or non-threat, but the
current state of humanity with both positive and negative sides. It
is the system we are stuck with and we should work to make the best of
it. As I said I am a business man and I make money trading on a
market.


>
> > I only differ as to the
> > practicle nature of these goals. But I am getting bit tired of you
> > adding nothing, you just repeat yourself over and over again.
>
> I can't tell you what the future will look like, and that is what you want.
> I could lie and create some stupid five-year plan in the manner of
> politicians, but that would be wrong.
>

If you are going to have a political agenda as radical and
uncompromising as yours you need to think it out and have plans or you
really have nothing but just talk.

If you have no concrete ideas about how we can abolish the monopoly of
the use of force held by the state than your political demand that it
be done is worthless.

Just demanding a goal because you want it is no plan. You need
concrete plans that will make the objective obtainable. That is why
libertarian politics never gets anywhere, they go on and on and on
about how government should go but they never offer a program of how a
Stateless society can be constructed, and frankly the idea of waking
up one day to learn that there are no longer any police, money,
military, or any other state agencies or operations is horrorific to
practicle people.

Certainly the state holds power over us, but we need to see options
and not platitudes.


> > I actually am interested in reading how you think we should re-arrange
> > our state to get full freedom now.
>
> Re-arranging the state will never give full freedom. The state ought to be
> reduced whenever and however much possible until it's gone.
>

Which is precisely what I said again and again. However much
possible, I have said that precise thing atleast 10 times.

Frankly I know you have no idea how an anarchy would work, no one
really does. Its a goal for the future.

I have a plan though, you just have some lines. My plan is that
individuals learn to live together in such a way that people do not
seek out power over each other. This will involve centuries of work.
We need to expand and change the economy, we need to ultimately expand
our technology to abolish both work and money, we need people to
experiment more with alternative life styles, people need to take a
more active role in inventing culture, and we need to make violence
and weapons utterly taboo.

To say we will get rid of the state and somehow magically the free
market will resolve everything in a short period is utterly misfull
thinking.

As I said I know the forces that exist in places like LA, Chicago, New
York; you are clearly rather rural. Once the state is gone, and the
police are gone, organized crime groups with large stocks of weapons
and arms, along with radical groups, will take the massive stockpiles
of weapons and leave the cities, which will be dying under the shock
of the collapse of the money economy, and seek to establish authority
in rural areas where they can enslave the local population in a surf
system. Frankly the rural NRA gun nuts will wake up to find
themselves utterly outgunned by LA street gains trying to establish
small kingdoms for themslves.

There would be no free market to fix all these things. With money
suddenly no longer worth anything the economy would collapse and any
organized market activity would stop taking place. Violence would
become the order of the day as different groups began to fight to try
and take control.

I would point to our experience in Iraq. Bush people were just a
little libertarian, they imagined that taking down the Iraqi state
would allow freedom to suddenly bloom and expand. Well, they were
wrong. The site of armed gangs roaming the streets of Mousal is
disturbing, the idea of them leaving New York to take the country side
is disgusting.

Be practicle. I agree we need to limit the power of the state, but we
need to accept that the state will remain for a long time in to the
future. Anywhere that a government and state has suddenly disolved
the results have been terrible, and the situation has only improved
once a new state is established.

The only option to having a state is a return to rural tribalism,
which I have no interest in. I am a big Opera fan you see, and Operas
need cities and cities need States.

Maybe in 1,000 years an advanced anarchy will exist and I hope so, but
not today, not next week and not next year.

Inspector Clousseau

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 7:34:04 PM6/25/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:
[interminably]
> to which Susan Hogarth replied
> [interminably]

Has anyone ingested enough spice to have the prescience to foresee who
will have the last word?

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 25, 2004, 7:53:32 PM6/25/04
to
On 25 Jun 2004 12:19:42 -0700, in article

<689922c7.0406...@posting.google.com>, bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
>Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<2oUCc.74133$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> > I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
>> > given one.
>> >
>> > I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
>> > state"
>>
>> Wow - how can you keep missing the point so badly? I'm not proposing any
>> sort of 'state', and I'm not proposing to become a minter of coins, either.
>> How money becomes available in a free society will be a matter for the
>> market to decide.
>
>But a market of our complexity requires currency.

Still missing the point I see. I never said anything about not having currency.

[snip a bunch of statist apologia and absolutely false suggestions that I am
advocating forcing people to give up government for themselves]

Christopher Browne

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 3:26:25 AM6/26/04
to
The world rejoiced as Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote:
> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
>> given one.
>>
>> I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
>> state"
>
> Wow - how can you keep missing the point so badly? I'm not proposing
> any sort of 'state', and I'm not proposing to become a minter of
> coins, either. How money becomes available in a free society will
> be a matter for the market to decide.
>
> It's like asking Linus Torvalds "How will Linux look in the next
> five years?" Well, you know - there are MANY Linuxes, and Torvalds
> isn't directing their creation. There will likely be several monies
> in a free society, and users will decide which they
> prefer. Standards will probably arise.

Unfortunately, the "leap" into anarchism does not normally take place
in a manner that allows this to emerge.

If a place's government disappears, what emerges is that those that
can grasp at the tattered bits of power that remain wind up in tight
control of whatever it is that remains.

- If you eliminate the police, the "new police" is the set of thugs
being paid to protect the big thugs.

- If you eliminate the government judicary, then there is _nowhere_
for people that haven't hired their own group of thugs to go to
in order to deal with people that break contracts.

What we get _isn't_ an L. Neil Smith "libertarian utopia;" what we
see, in practice, are things like:

a) Somalia, where you're either warlord or muck,

b) Russia, where everything that wasn't nailed down (and much that
was) got "acquired" by organized crime interest,

c) South Africa, where, after throwing out apartheid, they got,
instead, the likes of Winnie Mandela running amuck with her
bodyguards.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer - 18. "Perhaps it IS a good day to die!
I say we ship it!"

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 7:49:54 AM6/26/04
to
Christopher Browne wrote:

> The world rejoiced as Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote:
>> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> I have also time and time again asked for specifics, and you have not
>>> given one.
>>>
>>> I just want to know how you plan on handeling money in this "free
>>> state"
>>
>> Wow - how can you keep missing the point so badly? I'm not proposing
>> any sort of 'state', and I'm not proposing to become a minter of
>> coins, either. How money becomes available in a free society will
>> be a matter for the market to decide.

>> [snip poor Linux analogy]


>
> Unfortunately, the "leap" into anarchism does not normally take place
> in a manner that allows this to emerge.

Who is talking about a "leap"?

> If a place's government disappears, what emerges is that those that
> can grasp at the tattered bits of power that remain wind up in tight
> control of whatever it is that remains.

A land in which the overwhelming majority of people accepts the 'legitimacy'
of the state and welcomes its rule *will* be ruled. Ex-slaves are
notoriously poor decision-makers - making your own decisions is somethign
that gets stronger with use.

> - If you eliminate the police, the "new police" is the set of thugs
> being paid to protect the big thugs.

I never suggested 'eliminating the police'.

> - If you eliminate the government judicary, then there is _nowhere_
> for people that haven't hired their own group of thugs to go to
> in order to deal with people that break contracts.

You really think that thugs are the right people to defend contracts? Seems
backwards to me.

> What we get _isn't_ an L. Neil Smith "libertarian utopia;"

I really should read Smith I suppose; but libertarians aren't utopian -
people who think government can be 'limited' and have 'internal checks and
balances' are utopian.

> what we
> see, in practice, are things like:
>
> a) Somalia, where you're either warlord or muck,
>
> b) Russia, where everything that wasn't nailed down (and much that
> was) got "acquired" by organized crime interest,
>
> c) South Africa, where, after throwing out apartheid, they got,
> instead, the likes of Winnie Mandela running amuck with her
> bodyguards.

None of those situations describe anything close to anarchy - only a change
in government. This is why revolution is probably always doomed as a
strategy.

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constitution, which IS

Douglas Barber

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 1:44:06 PM6/26/04
to

Christopher Browne wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, the "leap" into anarchism does not normally take place
> in a manner that allows this to emerge.
>
> If a place's government disappears, what emerges is that those that
> can grasp at the tattered bits of power that remain wind up in tight
> control of whatever it is that remains.
>
> - If you eliminate the police, the "new police" is the set of thugs
> being paid to protect the big thugs.
>
> - If you eliminate the government judicary, then there is _nowhere_
> for people that haven't hired their own group of thugs to go to
> in order to deal with people that break contracts.
>
> What we get _isn't_ an L. Neil Smith "libertarian utopia;" what we
> see, in practice, are things like:
>
> a) Somalia, where you're either warlord or muck,
>
> b) Russia, where everything that wasn't nailed down (and much that
> was) got "acquired" by organized crime interest,
>
> c) South Africa, where, after throwing out apartheid, they got,
> instead, the likes of Winnie Mandela running amuck with her
> bodyguards.

This is well said. Fortunately it comes before your sig line 'Signs of a

Klingon Programmer - 18. "Perhaps it IS a good day to die!

I say we ship it!' because *that* is a hard act to follow ;)

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:31:25 PM6/26/04
to
Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message news:<2k48n0F...@uni-berlin.de>...

> What we get _isn't_ an L. Neil Smith "libertarian utopia;" what we
> see, in practice, are things like:
>
> a) Somalia, where you're either warlord or muck,
>
> b) Russia, where everything that wasn't nailed down (and much that
> was) got "acquired" by organized crime interest,
>
> c) South Africa, where, after throwing out apartheid, they got,
> instead, the likes of Winnie Mandela running amuck with her
> bodyguards.

The problem is simply this:

1. Presently a large number of humans want power. I know, I'm in
business. I would estimate that 50% of managers are driven purely by
the kick they get out of bossing people around.

2. Humans still have a tendency to be violent and to use violence, and
our culture activiely promotes violence as a means of problem solving.

3. There are a lot of weapons around, and humans find it easy to use
them.

Having spent most of my life in Chicago, and once having worked with
inner city people, I know precisely what would happen if suddenly the
authority of police, the state, and the money system was just thrown
out for so that everyone could just figure it out themselves.

In fact one need only look at Iraq right now and see, but it would be
many times worse.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:40:27 PM6/26/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<WqUCc.74134$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<FCLCc.74104$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >> Bully for you. Now if only you could extend that idea of freedom to
> >> allowing people to keep what they produce you'd be a *real* liberal, not
> >> the sham-liberal of the late twentieth century.
> >
> > And I wonder how we will protect this from bands of armed gangs
> > without a state.
>
> Oh, poor baby! Who will protect us from Bad Men?! Oh, wait - we'll get our
> own Bad Men, and let THEM rule us. Fool.

Susan, have you ever seen anyone shot by a gang member? Have you ever
seen some kid hauled in to the ER which their chest covered in blood
because of a fight over maybe twenty dollars between two gang members.

I have. Frankly you are clearly a utter and total hick, you have
absolutely no idea the kind of violence and force that exist in the
criminal world in the United States.

If ever the US government suddenly collapses in all its levels you
would find yourself either dead, or if you are young enough, a sex
slave of a mob within a very short period of time.

I don't trust the state at all, but I know the nature of elements in
our own society who are heavily armed, trained, and can call upon mass
resources. In fact I have been in areas where these people rule.
Large parts of Chicago, LA, and New York are ruled by the gangs with
limited police presence, and they are shit holes.

As a social worker I used to go in to these areas, where murder was a
daily event. At first I was terrified, but the doctor I worked for
said no social worker had ever been killed doing my job. Why? Beause
the gangs know perfectly well if a social worker was shot by a gang
banger the politicans, press and public would scream bloody murder and
the police would invade the areas and make the gangs lives hell.

Susan I hate to tell you this but it is only the states willingness to
use the threat of violence against thousands of street gains that
prevent them from spreading out and enslaving everyone else. They are
well armed, well organized, and very experienced and they would take
you and decide if they could use your for a profit or not. If so you
would be their slave, if not you would be dead.

And if you think you could protect yourself your an utter fool.


> Here's some suggestions (NOT a 'plan') about the private production of
> defense in a market society:

Again a market society where we don't know where the money is coming
from. You still have not provided any means of exchange but lets move
on.

>
> [I don't have time to hunt the reference. Look for a paper by Hoppe called
> 'The private production of defense']


You don't even know the basic outlines of your own political beliefs.

Your not very deep are you. Generally people who believe things as
radical as what you believe have some idea, some general outline of
how they are suppose to work.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 2:59:28 PM6/26/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<YbUCc.74132$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> You mean "NO more STATE police, no more STATE military, no more STATE
> money." The things people desire and create will not simply disappear
> because the daddy-state is no longer churning them out.
>

And again, one more time, how is this going to be done?

Will there be multiply police authorities selling their services to
the highest bidder? Will there be more than one armed forces in the
United States contracting out and seeking out opportunities? And what
if these seperate armed groups start fighting each other, as they
always do in such situations.

And again, what is the money scheme. I mean I just wonder if you want
to go on the gold standard or silver standard, or if you think banks
should print money or what.


> > What happens? How does it work?
>
> What do I look like - a fortune-teller?

Not at all.

You are presenting a very radical political agenda. I am just
wondering what the plan for obtaining it and what the consequences
will be.


> I beleive that is freedom is chosen in the present, people will be better
> off in the future.


I also believe in people selecting more freedom. As I said I oppose
marriage because it is a monopoly impossed by the state upon the
nature of sexual bonds, making only one recognized form of sexual bond
requiring state sanction and regulation. I oppose laws on drugs, I
oppose most of what the state does.

I want to see the state govern as little as is needed. But knowing
the nature and power of street gains that exist today in the US I am
happy to know that there are organized state forces answerable to
elected officals around and I have not desire to see them leave.


>
> > You just spout one lines about wanting to be free like some 16 year
> > old hippie smoking her first joint but were is the program? How do
> > you establish an anarchist society here and now.
> >
> > I am not asking for you to come up with new insults for people to
> > disagree with you, I am asking for a program.
>
> There is no PROGRAM for freedom. What you want is some guarantee that no one
> will be hurt; that the roads will continue to roll and the welfare checks
> will still go in the mail without the state. That's not how freedom works.

No I don't I want to know the plan.

Look, when ever anyone has some great idea to do something that idea,
no matter how great is not enough. Frankly I strongly doubt you have
ever done anything in your life at all, for you clearly have no sense
what-so-ever about how ideas are carried out as plans.

You have a vision: an anarchist society without any government. I
also have that vision. We have a reality, a society where there is a
great deal of power held by many institutions, of which the state is
only one.

How do we get from now to then. If you believe the state should be
abolished you need to come up with some mechanism to explain to people
of how this is going to work or you will remain, well libertarians.

the reason the party has no support is people with money in the bank
want to konw what will happen to the money, and the bank, and the
streets. If you are going to propose a radical revolution of the most
historic nature you need to think a little about what will come of it.

Look at Iraq, Bush didn't bother to plan and see how it came out. I
imagined the news from Iraq would have been very instructive about
radcial plans to change regimes not worked out in great detail.

If you can not present answers to simple questions like how could
money now issued by the state on paper be converted to an accepted
medium of exchange without a state mint. You can't even come up with
a suggestion. And how are you going to stop a group of say 500 gang
bangers with AK-47 from taking over a town of 200 farmers with shot
guns?

Again I suggest you and maybe 20 other people go out and build an
anarchist state somewhere, make your own food and everything you need
and your own money system. Before you demand, rather
aristocratically, that the entire nation do what you say, do it
yourself for a few years and work out the details.

you won't I'm sure but I wish you would think about it. The reason
teh state continues to grow is that most people want it, and most
people who want anarchy just whine, without building for themselves
the core of a new system.

Go out there an build one tiny anarchy. If you grow your own food and
make your own clothing and live rather simply you can be sure that the
police and state will utterly leave you alone. Alaska would be a good
place to try. You can easily find an area where you can sustain
yourself and it would take the police weeks to get to you. You and
your friends can than work it out, and in a couple years of making
your own money and having your own system you can send a
representitive to the outside world and show us.

Frankly, as a designer of computer, and if someone wants me to put in
a system on every computer in the world I want to see it work on one
system first before I would even consider it. It is not an issue of
the system be right or wrong or insutling people who don't like it.
Politics is the practicle application of power, or non-application of
power.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 3:54:29 PM6/26/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> And again, what is the money scheme. 

Whatever people want.

> I mean I just wonder if you want
> to go on the gold standard or silver standard,

I 'want' gold, because it's shiny and I like shiny things. Is that good
enough for you? You may want cowrie shells, and that's just dandy. In terms
of 'standards', they will arise when people show a greater general
preference for gold than for cowrie shells.

> or if you think banks
> should print money or what.

They should do what their customers want. That's how business works.

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constitution, which IS

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 3:55:50 PM6/26/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> You are presenting a very radical political agenda. 

Freedom? Yes, I suppose that is radical.

> I am just
> wondering what the plan for obtaining it

Right now my plan is to try to show people that freedom is the only correct
choice - both morally and pragmatically.

> and what the consequences
> will be.

People will be free. I can't tell your fortune.

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constitution, which IS

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 3:44:00 PM6/26/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> ... Frankly you are clearly a utter and total hick, ...

Nice chatting with you, too. Ass.

[snip]

> Your not very deep are you. Generally people who believe things as
> radical as what you believe have some idea, some general outline of
> how they are suppose to work.

Still missing the point. I could give you (or point you to) detailed
outlines of possible market mechanisms for just about anything - money,
legal systems, roads, schools, whatever. But then you would start picking
at little bits and explaining how *my system* would not be perfect or would
not be liked by people or whatever. But I don't propose to institiute a set
of particular institutions to replace those run monopoly fashion by the
state now. The problem is that people are so used to a government monopoly
on some things - like money and justice - that they can't even imagine a
competitive marketplace of *different* providers. So discussing the
particular model I might imagine or conceive or know about would be
counterproductive - it would give the (fals) impression that I was
advocating that *particular* system. The only system I'm advocating is
freedom.

Talking about specifics is a diversion from the primary issue. Freedom is a
moral issue - people ought to be free not because I can prove it's better
(although I beleive I can), but because it's *right*.

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constitution, which IS

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 3:51:53 PM6/26/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<YbUCc.74132$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
>> You mean "NO more STATE police, no more STATE military, no more STATE
>> money." The things people desire and create will not simply disappear
>> because the daddy-state is no longer churning them out.
>>
>
> And again, one more time, how is this going to be done?

How do I know? Do I look like a fortune-teller? I can't tell you the future
of free society. There is no five-year plan for freedom.

Because people want these things, there will be a market for them. Because
they want them in different flavors, there will be different varieties
unless supressed by a state.

[snip yet more state apologia and 'what will happen to the children?'
whines]

--
Susan Hogarth
"Congress doesn't seem to know anything about the Constitution, which IS

Till Crueger

unread,
Jun 26, 2004, 9:37:32 PM6/26/04
to
First I have to appologize for replying at the wrong point of this thread,
but unfortunately my Newsserver doesn't covert the Group to the full
extend, so the real point of entry is alreade gone. I have to copy and
paste, so I might also change a bit of the order, to show the meaning of
what I am trying to bring across better. I hope you don't mind.

>> well, I meant to say how you would suppose things would get organized
>> when we have a state of Anarchy. All I know is the nice phrase "The
>> market will find a solution". Well, for me this reminds me a lot of the
>> old phrase "God will take care of you", except that your god is the
>> market instead. I know enough about problems of a free market, and
>> other chaotic systems, to be rather sceptical when someone issues a
>> statement like the one above.
>
> Different people will seek and find different solutions (to the problems
> of justice, security, etc). There is no need - and indeed it is
> undesirable - for everyone to have the same solution. That is monopoly,
> and we know that monopolies are bad.

But is it truly the case, that we have quite a few different solutions.
China's constitution is hardly similar than the one of the US. Germany and
China again have something totaly different. Or take Switzerland for
example. They have a lot of public ballots, and almost any decission has
to be done by the majority of the people, instead of elected official. So
in fact it is not at all that we have a Monopoly. And if something is
missing, I think it is mostly because there is not enough of a market for
it.

>> In my definition Freedom means to be allowed to do anything one is able
>> to.
>
> Yes, of course. You are *free* to be a thief, but by becoming one, you
> announce ot the world that you do not beleive in property, and anything
> you consider 'yours' is up for grabs.
>
>> Any statement which includes something "I may not" or "You are not
>> allowed to" reduces freedom.
>
> The poitn is that only by respecting the person and property of others
> can you legitimately assert the same respect *from* others. That is what
> the added phrase 'consistent with a property principle' refers to.

Ok, so we seem to agree at this point at least to some extend, for me it
goes a bit further, taking into account not only the simplyfied form of
Kant's ethics ("Do unto others as you want them to do unto you") but also
the more complicated form and also some other rules of ethics.

>> So, if there are many reasons, then it is the people's FREE choice to
>> find those reasons more valid than your reasons to abolish the state.
>
> Indeed - as long as their state does not aggress against another. They
> have no right to aggress against another; either personally or through
> the agency of the state.

If you take this statement into account, and simply apply the rule from
the above example, this would simply mean, they could do so as to abolish
your state. It would simply mean, they would have to give the same right
to basicly any other state, to stay consistent with their principle. They
have the right to do so, and if they also have the strength to take up
anyone else, they also can be so blind as not to face the consequences
(That they would have effectivly given anyone the legitimacy to abolish
their state as well)

>> Well, if you are entiteld by someone to do something in his name, and
>> you carry out the task in his name, then you are not as responsible for
>> your actions as you were before.
>
> Of course you are. "I was just doing my job" was dismissed as an excuse
> at Nurenburg. Do you find it an acceptable one?

Oh, I knew I would get to hear something like that. Especially since by
now it shouldn't have been to hard for you that I am German. However there
are some diferences of my examply and yours. In my case someone would
effectively and willingly pass the responsibility on to someone else. This
could be for example by doing something like saying: "I give you
permission to by a car in my name" the person issuing this statement would
still have to pay for the car though. In your case there simply was an
order like "Kill the jew". The officers never said anything like "kill
that jew in my name". This is the first point where the examples differ.
Another thing was that the persons doing the attrocities most often joined
the army of their free will. So they gave the officers the permission to
order them and others around in their name. Hence they made themselves
responsible for any orders given by the Officers.

>> If someone is sheepishly enough to give you the right to do anything in
>> his name,
>
> People cannot give rights they do not posses to others. No one has the
> right to rule over another.

Where was I refering to a right I did not posses at this point? I was
simply stating the fact that in my opinion the right to do something in
your name can also be passed on, but one also has to face the
consequences.


>>> Another profoundly immoral statement. Why in the world would I want to
>>> rule others?
>>
> Well, you already do. By wanting to make others free, you are making a
>> decission for them.
>
> Where have I advocated forcing others to be free?

>> If you do not want to be ruled by others, but want others to be free,
>> there are ways to do it. You could move to a small island and declare
>> it your own free country.
>
> I want to be free in my own home.

As I explained already, in my opinion that should be possible. You just
would have to face the consequences. This would include the consequence to
be thrown in jail, because the people surrounding you think it is more
conviniant that way.

>> Or you could declare your
>> house and your property an independent country. You are very free to do
>> so.
>
> So you think that when I was jailed for 'tax evasion' that would be an
> unwarranted aggression from the surrounding state? I am very glad to
> hear you say this.

I agree with you that tax evasion is unwarranted aggression, as long as
you don't claim any service for that. But as soon as you leave your own
free state and use any property of the surrounding state, you have to
agree to their terms of service. That means you would have to pay anything
they ask you to, without getting a say about what they use the payment
for. In fact because you would propably be surounded completely by their
property, i think it would be rather hard to evade usage of it. Hence they
could ask almost anything of you for the usage. I like the idea better
that I get a bit to say about where the money I pay to the state goes.

>> And others, including the American government are very free to simply
>> ignore this declaration of independence.
>
> They are free to do so, but they would be wrong to do so.

I never said they were right to do so. I simply stated this as a possible
vision of what might happen. And in fact IMHO I see it as the most likely
thing to happen.

>> Well, they would revoke their
>> right to their independence at the same moment,
>
> Rights cannot be 'revoked' by the state because they are not granted by
> the state. Privileges are granted. Freedom is a right, not a privilege.

If you re-read the above again I was refering to a right that the state
has. If you agree that persons have rights I doubt that you will disagree
that groups of persons have rights. I was at no point refering that the
state revoked anybodies rights in the above statement, but rather saying
that the state has revoked their own rights. In a "Do unto others"-world
your conduct shows others how you want to be treated. If you refuse to
aknowledge somebodies else rights, you show the world that they don't have
to aknowledge that same right when treating you. Hence they effectively
revoke their own rights, not someone elses. This is, if I did not
misunderstand you, exactly the same as the consistency with the property
principle.

>> but this is in this case
>> not a deep problem, since in the world you want property means power,
>> and they simply have more property than anyone else.
>
> All I want is power (ownership) over *my* property - first and foremost
> my own physical self.

Ok, I would grant you the power to do almost anything you like with your
property. As long as you don't inflict upon me or my property I am fine.
From our discussion so far, I think I can be mostly sure that you will not
intrude upon my property. Even if it is only for the reason that you don't
want to give others any reason for intrusion upon your property. However
there are still those, who don't value morale as high as you do. And it is
for protection against those, that I call for laws. My whole life I have
valued legitimacy over legality. So far my notion of morale has at most
points coincided with the laws of the state. At others I have gone by what
I thought to be right instead of what is legal. And at a few moments I
thought of the consequences of not taking the legal road, and then the
state got me to do something I did not think to be right. It is for those
few cases that I try to change the state mostly.

>> Well, I see it as my freedom to enslave you. I will never make any use
>> of this freedom,
>
> Do you mean you will vote against the draft or any form of compulsory
> service? Mandatory schooling? Taxes? That is good to hear.

Yes and now, I did vote against the draft and I definitely found necessary
to do so. The draft is one of the main examples I meant above when I
talked about taking the legal road.
When it comes to taxes, well, I use a service (Roads, Universities, public
health care etc), so I find it only rightto pay for it. In a democracy I
get at least a bit of a voice, in saying what is done with the money I pay
for the service. If a private company would run the service, I would not
think it right if I wanted to dictate, that they ONLY ever use my money
for the maintenance and cost of the service. Same is true for the
government. I don't expect them to use the taxes only on the things I paid
for, but at least I refuse to give those, who waste my money, my vote.

With mandatory schooling the situation is rather complicated. The problem
is that there are people who simply are not (yet) fit, to fully rule
themselves. This includes small children, severe mentaly disturbed, etc.
The first problem you arrive at here, is that you have to find a way to
figure out who is fit to rule himself and who is not. The other problem is
that you have to ensure that the person who is ruling over those, does not
harm them. This is where mandatory schooling comes into place. The idea
simply is, that by not sending your children to a school, you would harm
them, by not giving them the best education possible. In germany this also
means any school, be it public or private. The only possibility you don't
have, is to not send your child to a school (i.e. harming another human
being, namely your child). In a world where everybody has to defend
himself there still has to be the matter of those who are unable to defend
themselves. As long as you leave out planning for those (this includes
your children) I think there will always be missing something fundamental
in your ideas.

>> However as far as I can see the consequences of this small problem are
>> not as grave as the consequences of abolishing the system altogether.
>
> Forget abolishing. What about an 'opt-out' of the system? Woudl you
> favor that?

I would at any time. At the cost that you continue to pay for any service
you still use from the old system. And that you don't get to dictate
anything about the terms of usage, when you do so. True, you would still
be able to call to someone else for the same service, but I want to see
how you do that, when the only roads to your land are actually owned by
the system you just opted-out of. There are not many other options left
for you, so by opting out, you have effectively enslaved yourself to the
system you just tried to get rid of.

Don't get me wrong here, I think rather highly of your idea of opting out.
I think the French and the Spanish should definitely offer that option to
the Basks, the English should offer it to the Irish and the Americans
should definitely give it to the Iraquis. However such a decission has to
be done wisely, so the problem I depicted above should not happen. I doubt
you will end up paying less than 50% of your income, when the US has to
put a guard up at your home, who will collect you toll everytime you use a
road owned by the US. Think about it, then you would not only have to pay
the toll for the road, but also the salary for the guard.

>> However if you have any better system, to ensure those voters are also
>> taken into account, then I will still be happy to hear it.
>
> End voting. Then everyone has an equal voice.

But some are able to scream louder than others, and some are even mute. So
much for an equal voice after the end of voting.

>> So then where is your problem in the discussion with bobby? He simply
>> stated that he thinks that at a later point in our Human evolution we
>> will be able to get away from our government to a more anarchistic/free
>> state of being. This seems to me a lot like your idea of the withering
>> away of the state.
>
> He beleives the state is *neccessary*. I think that so far from being
> neccessary, it is immoral and a great harm to many people. I would be
> satisfied with a simple 'opt-out' option - why is it, do you suppose,
> that governments never allow that sort of thing? (and I don't mean
> moving elsewhere).

As I stated above, in most cases I think it would simply be not practical,
jsut imagine the example of the guard patroling around your land. In other
cases like the example of the basks simple economical reasons can be
found. Take a guess which one of the two I support and which one I don't.

>> There is a nice statement for this "Quis custodes ipse custodies?". Who
>> will watch over those, who watch over others. For this there should be
>> a system of checks and balances inside the government.
>
> You can't have 'checks' on a system that are WITHIN the system. This is
> probably the greatest most destructive myth taught in American public
> schools.
>
>> From what I know
>> about the American government however this system is rather crude.
>
> It is impossible.
>
>> Again I can only say that in Europe it is much more balanced.
>
> I am delighted to hear it. It is still an illusory idea that checks on a
> system can come from within the system.

Why not, a system can consist of many parts. Take for example the system
of your body, which also fights cancer. Often it does a pretty good job at
this. There you have a system that is checking itself. Take as another
example stable ecosystems, as long as there is no great force on the
system from outside, they tend to stay stable. And you could view that as
a system where any part checks the other part.

>> As for your question
>> why the humans who constitute government transform so magically: As
>> soon as you closely watch someone, they start to behave a lot better.
>> If you don't have a method to watch your official then there is a big
>> problem in your system.
>
> The media are often tapped for that job. If, say, Clinton or Bush was
> acting on their 'best behavior' while in the White House, they must be
> monsters in private!

Agreed, I dislike Bush as well as Clinton.
I don't ussually watch CNN any more, because I know that I might not get a
true picture of the events. However I always try to keep my sources of
information as broad as possible, as to not get a biased picture. During
the Iraq war I tried not only to read German or European news, but I also
figured out where I could acces newssources from the US and the Middle
east.


As a conclusion I probably could say that basicly I dislike the current
political system. However I dislike the alternatives even more. I want all
those benefits I get from democracy, and I don't want to give them up. As
long as democracy is the only way to ensure those benefits, I am willing
to pay for them. As for those who think they are more happy without those
benifits, I think they should be given their free choice. I have depicted
my ideas of what might happen, if you think you like those better in my
opinion you are free to do so.

I mainly got into this argument because I have met people who had rather
similar notions as you. However the basic ideas of those were very fast
uncovered. There are unfortunately also those, who simply think they might
gain some power over others as soon as they are free to do so. They also
know that in such a free world, property would be power and hope they can
gain more power that others from their property.

From looking at this perspective, I think I start to begin to understand
how FH could have meant his statement. Besides being a ruler, an
Aristocrat is mainly someone who has been put into this possition by some
higher force. In the historical sense this has been god or some mythical
birth right. In our present day society gods have become less important
than a few hunred years ago. However if you form "the free market" into a
mythical figure similar to god a few hundred years ago, you start to
arrive at the same thing. Now you simply have people who become rulers,
because the free market made them rulers. Again you have rulers appointed
by some mythical, higher and uncontrolable force.

whoa, at least I came a bit back on topic towards the end...

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:17:08 AM6/27/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<tYgDc.68504$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<YbUCc.74132$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >> You mean "NO more STATE police, no more STATE military, no more STATE
> >> money." The things people desire and create will not simply disappear
> >> because the daddy-state is no longer churning them out.
> >>
> >
> > And again, one more time, how is this going to be done?
>
> How do I know? Do I look like a fortune-teller? I can't tell you the future
> of free society. There is no five-year plan for freedom.
>
> Because people want these things, there will be a market for them. Because
> they want them in different flavors, there will be different varieties
> unless supressed by a state.


Three responses to one post, I am not sure if I should be flattered.

Once again, you are part, I take it, of a political party with a
political agenda. From what I have read you demand the removal of
government authority in all of its forms today, I hope for it in the
future.

Well frankly you can go on for hours and hours, it ain't going to
happen and I think you must know that. The way you are presenting
your point that government is evil and must go and you don't even care
about the consequences and just assume things will work out is not
going to sell. No one is buying, and I mean that. How many
Libertarian canidates have been elected nationally, does it even
constitution .01% of elected offices. I profoundly doubt it.

What you want is a radical POLITICAL (which means power)
transformation. To abolish the state is as much an exercise of power
as to maintain one and you desire to do so is by its very nature a
political agenda.

And therefore as one, and one of the utmost radicalness, it is
necessary that some work and planning be done in advance, especially
after the utter diaster of a much more modest, but slightly similiar,
plan in Iraq has been such an utter failure. People in their vast
majorities are not going to buy Abolish the State and Good things will
happen. This is even more true in the market place you claim will
provide all needed services. Though all business people work to pay
less in tax they are noteworthy for generally wanting conservative and
not anarchistic policy, in fact the market place, as it exists
globally today, is run by managers and owners who are utterly opposed
to any form of anarchy. They have money in banks issued from
governments, they look to central banking systems to set rates, they
buy T-bonds, they use courts to resolve contract and trade disputes,
they call upon the police and state to secure their interests.

I think gang bangers in LA are probably more likely to approve of
sudden anarchism, in which they already live anyways, than would
established MBA and business people.

So how can the libertarian party move from being something of a joke,
with that cute square of political beliefs which supposes to place all
humanity within a 2-D box, and become an active leader.

Simple, stop talking and start doing. There are probably 10,000
truely devoted memebers of the libertarian party, though maybe most
are just die hard third partiers on the right but I imagine that a
Libertarian canidate for President, an idea that is so contradictory
for an anarchist group is actually rather funny, well lets say rather
than running someone for President who will never have a chance to win
you start to establish communities built on your principles.

There is plenty of land in the United States where no one lives and
that you could pick up cheap. Take 500 anarchist pioneers and JUST DO
IT. Establish a small society without money, where all things are
managed through an internal free market. You can view all dealing
with outside markets as a kind of forgien trade demanding acceptance
of an internal currency, which would be the case for any anarchist
society anyways. You can live without leaders or organizations, with
people establishing business, or farms, and using any form of money
they desire and resolving any form of internal disputes they have as
they like.

In 10 years the libertarian party could then show the world the
result.

Until you yourself are willing to do it on a small scale its rather
aristocratic to demand the entire population, or planet, adopt that
which you presently are not willing to try.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:58:32 AM6/27/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<4RgDc.68502$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

>
> Still missing the point. I could give you (or point you to) detailed
> outlines of possible market mechanisms for just about anything - money,
> legal systems, roads, schools, whatever.

Than please do so.


> But then you would start picking
> at little bits and explaining how *my system* would not be perfect or would
> not be liked by people or whatever.

So you do not give a program because you fear I will be critical of
it.

Strange that someone who would pretend to assert the certainty to
undertake the greatest most dramatic and most risky political event in
human history would be afraid of a little criticism on a chat group.

I spent 10 years as an anarchist trying to figure out how we could
abolish state power and each time I came up with some mechanism I
couldn't stick with it after thinking it through. Youc an call this
picking at little things, such as what if the people who make the
medicine don't accept the money of the people with the sick children
or a band of 50,000 armed thugs show up and declare your village to be
part of the Republic of Arrogant LA Street Gangs, but I personally
found these questions of major importance.

In the end I simply accepted that the State, like death and the fact
that most people would believe in God, to just be one of those things
I had to accept. And I got on with my life.


> But I don't propose to institiute a set
> of particular institutions to replace those run monopoly fashion by the
> state now.

I'm not asking for you to institute anything, I am asking simply for a
plan to carry out your orders.

Okay Susan lets say you have been, by some act of say Space Aliens
suddenly landed on Earth, made the ruler of all humanity without
question. Okay, so now you suddenly have the power to abolish the
state.

You bring all the people who are going to insure your plan gets
carried out, what are your orders to them to abolish the state?

And I am most concerned with how you insure that a new state is not
impossed out of the chaos. How do you prevent people who want power
and have supporters and arms from taking it?

I frankly see no means involving less then thousands of years of
technical and social evolution. Humanity overall is simply not at a
moral state where we can expect that given a vacuum of power someone
somewhere won't declare themselves the leader and start collecting
taxes, and slaves, and killing people.

Its what always happens when power vacuums are established and I
frankly would also be interested in you pointing to one example of a
state collapsing and this not happening, I can't find any. Iraq and
Afghanistan are perfect examples in the news today.

> The problem is that people are so used to a government monopoly
> on some things - like money and justice - that they can't even imagine a
> competitive marketplace of *different* providers.

And you failure to provide them an image of what that would look like
does nothing to counter that.

> So discussing the
> particular model I might imagine or conceive or know about would be
> counterproductive - it would give the (fals) impression that I was
> advocating that *particular* system. The only system I'm advocating is
> freedom.
>

Firstly if people are going to imagine something they need to be given
some image, you can prefix it with THIS IS ONE POSSIBLE SYSTEM and
flame me if I say SO THIS IS YOUR ONLY SYSTEM, I think you can handle
that.

If the only system you are advocating is freedom well thats nice,
sadly we live in a world of two conditions:

1. People want power over others and are willing to fight for it.
2. Resources are scarce.

In these situations total utter freedom, which technically is not a
system at all, is a nice idea, like universal love and total
happiness, but like them it is something that individuals need to
start putting the ground work down in their own lives.

Frankly I doubt libertarian movement from the ground up, I think its
all just so much talk and retreat. For example I have meet many
married Libertarians. Marriage in our society may be voluntary, as
long as it fits in the approved and sanctioned definitions of the
State and recieves the approval and documentation of the State,
drawing both parties in to a series of laws and regulations now placed
upon them.

Marriage is a volunteery State institution, as is the Army in the US,
and voting; still it is a state institution.

Frankly I find libertarians to be confused anarchists. Most
anarchists, real anarchists, I know see that they need to work on a
personal level, they accept alternative forms of sexual bonding which
require no state sanction and are beyond the legislation of the state,
they work to reduce dependence upon money and live in as much a work
free money free economy as they can. Mostly they work through art and
other activities to try and expand what little freedom we have and can
understand.

I find that the artisitic side of the movement, the more left wing
anarchists, who have retreated from running Presidential canidates and
simply try to make it work for them, and I am just speaking of my own
friends and not in general here, are actually doing something. The
Libertarian party is all just talk.


> Talking about specifics is a diversion from the primary issue. Freedom is a
> moral issue - people ought to be free not because I can prove it's better
> (although I beleive I can), but because it's *right*.

The world, the real world, is made up of specifics and nothing else.
When people ignore the details and concentrate on moral absolutes I
get terrified.

People should be free, but they are not and frankly my experience tell
me that they don't want to be. People seem content to do as their
culture tells them to do, to live lives in almost full confirmation of
the state and society in which they were born. People are already
free, they are born free and they can't ever fully escape the fact
that to be an aware human being is to be, at core, free. Thinking is
freedom.

Humans actively work to make themselves less free. They get in to
debt, they join political parties, they enter in to conventional
relationships pre-structured for them, they join companies, they
pledge allegiances.

People are terrified of freedom, it is the last thing almost anyone
really wants.

To decide to live your life on your own terms in your own ways, to
make you own philosophy, your own convictions, to select your life and
take the risks and face the consequences, how many people do this even
a little.

As I said earlier I started a branch of a business I was in in London.
I did so because my lover and I decided we prefered living there
after spending a great deal of time travelling. We came over to a
nation where we were not entitled to social benefits, we estbalished
our company in the UK but we were not given the benefits of the state
programs, beyond the health system which is necessary becasue private
insurance won't cover most things. Freedom to die because I can't get
to a doctor is not a freedom I am interested in.

It was not much, the freedom to choose another country, another
culture. I also decided to not work for a time and travel in Asia and
the Arab world. My lover and I decided not to marry because we didn't
want to get the state involved in regulating our relationship.

I rejected the religion I was raised with, and left the nation of my
birth to live in another, paying my way through my own business which
I trade through. It has been a path less travelled, one which
required we make some free selections, but it was not that radical.
And yet most people I encounter are stunned that anyone would take
such risks.

At the end of the day freedom is risk, freedom is responsibility,
freedom is uncertainty and often freedom is fear; and freedom is as
the core of most humans who spend almost all their lives giving up
because they don't want it.

I wish that was not the case but it is. The reason we don't have full
freedom is because none of us, including yourself, take it. It would
be so easy for your to just go off and live in your own isolted
fashion free of money and state. You could easily find a place where
the state will never find you, in fact its something thousands of
criminals are constantly doing.

But who does it? No one. People are born free and happily spend
their lives mking themselves slaves, doing what is expected of them.
The State almost never has to ever use force or even the threat of
force, people are more than happy to do what they are expected to do
because that, saddly, IS WHAT THEY WANT.

This is what humans are like, all over the world. They find anything
other than their conventions and traditions to be wrong. They
mistrust any human who decides to live beyond the bounds of what they
consider to be traditional rule to such an extent that free spirits
and souls are often in danger of their lives.

So Susan, just go make yourself a free spirit, be freer yourself and
that would atleast be a start.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:09:43 PM6/27/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<4RgDc.68502$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
>>
>> Still missing the point. I could give you (or point you to) detailed
>> outlines of possible market mechanisms for just about anything - money,
>> legal systems, roads, schools, whatever.
>
> Than please do so.

No; I've explained some of the reasons why (not to mention that I feel the
disapproving glare of Sam for starying so far off-topic). You can certainly
find lots of speculation and even proposals for various free-market
solutions to problems of crime; if you email me offlist I can point you to
some of them if you don't care to look yourself.

>> But then you would start picking
>> at little bits and explaining how *my system* would not be perfect or
>> would not be liked by people or whatever.
>
> So you do not give a program because you fear I will be critical of
> it.

No. One more time - I do not 'give a program' because freedom *is* the
'program'. What you do with freedom is your call, and what others do with
freedom is their call. I don't even require you to be free, only to
recognize my right to be free.

[snip]

> I spent 10 years as an anarchist trying to figure out how we could
> abolish state power and each time I came up with some mechanism I
> couldn't stick with it after thinking it through.

You probably couldn't envision, plan, and construct a television set,
either. And yet strangely enough there are such things as television sets.

Also - you seem to mix up your questions. Are you asking me how state power
could be abolished, or how people would be provided with the things that
now come to them through the state if the state ceased to function? You
seem to be asking both at various points.

[snip]

> In the end I simply accepted that the State, like death and the fact
> that most people would believe in God, to just be one of those things
> I had to accept. And I got on with my life.

Obviously anyone living now 'accepts' the state. I accept the state. What I
don't do is argue that it is a legitimate or moral institution.



>> But I don't propose to institiute a set
>> of particular institutions to replace those run monopoly fashion by the
>> state now.
>
> I'm not asking for you to institute anything, I am asking simply for a
> plan to carry out your orders.

What 'orders'?

[snip deus-ex-machina scenario]

[snip further apologia for the state]

[snip critique of libertarian movement]

>> Talking about specifics is a diversion from the primary issue. Freedom is
>> a moral issue - people ought to be free not because I can prove it's
>> better (although I beleive I can), but because it's *right*.
>
> The world, the real world, is made up of specifics and nothing else.
> When people ignore the details and concentrate on moral absolutes I
> get terrified.

Of course. I know that absolutism terrifies those who would rather imagine
some soft gray region where their compromises are not 'really' compromises,
but instead 'pragmatism'.

[snip people-like-being-slaves crap]

> People are terrified of freedom, it is the last thing almost anyone
> really wants.

Projection? Nevertheless, you are welcome to be not-free if it really
attracts you. You are not welcome to support the enslavement of those who
*do* wish to be free.

In other words: speak for yourself. Quit trying to convince yourself that
others really *do* want the taxes and other stat bullshit you find so
comforting.

[snip]

> ... The reason we don't have full


> freedom is because none of us, including yourself, take it. It would
> be so easy for your to just go off and live in your own isolted
> fashion free of money and state.

Why would I want to be 'free' of money!? That's absurd. As you yourself
pointed out, money is the sign of an advanced trading division-of-labor
economy.

[snip]

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:16:04 PM6/27/04
to
Till Crueger wrote:

> In my case someone would
> effectively and willingly pass the responsibility on to someone else. This
> could be for example by doing something like saying: "I give you
> permission to by a car in my name" the person issuing this statement would
> still have to pay for the car though.

Wrong. You are talking about a situation in which tax dollars are being
spent - the tax dollars of those wh do not vote as well as the tax dollars
of those who voted AGINST the politician in question. He is performing an
action (taxation, which is the equivalent of theft) which the voters had
not the authority to give him to do.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:25:48 PM6/27/04
to
Till Crueger wrote:

> From looking at this perspective, I think I start to begin to understand
> how FH could have meant his statement. Besides being a ruler, an
> Aristocrat is mainly someone who has been put into this possition by some
> higher force. In the historical sense this has been god or some mythical
> birth right. In our present day society gods have become less important
> than a few hunred years ago. However if you form "the free market" into a
> mythical figure similar to god a few hundred years ago, you start to
> arrive at the same thing. Now you simply have people who become rulers,
> because the free market made them rulers. Again you have rulers appointed
> by some mythical, higher and uncontrolable force.

Now this is interesting, and, thank the gods, back on-topic. I don't beleive
that aristocrat neccessarily means 'ruler', although I do beleive it means
either 'leader' or 'ruler'. I think it is a great mistake of our age to
confound the two concepts. A ruler is someone who *makes* people follow
him, while a leader is someone whom people follow of their own will.
Democracy may give a percentage of people a 'leader', but to others (who
did not vote for him) he is a 'ruler'.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:14:06 PM6/27/04
to
Till Crueger wrote:

>> Of course you are. "I was just doing my job" was dismissed as an excuse
>> at Nurenburg. Do you find it an acceptable one?
>
> Oh, I knew I would get to hear something like that. Especially since by
> now it shouldn't have been to hard for you that I am German

I had no idea you were German. But, yes, you should have expected that. "I
was just following orders" is never an acceptable defense - especially for
a politician.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:18:39 PM6/27/04
to
Till Crueger wrote:

> As long as you don't inflict upon me or my property I am fine.
> From our discussion so far, I think I can be mostly sure that you will not
> intrude upon my property. Even if it is only for the reason that you don't
> want to give others any reason for intrusion upon your property. However
> there are still those, who don't value morale as high as you do. And it is
> for protection against those, that I call for laws.

Well, most unfortunately for you, *those* (who are immoral) are exactly the
people making the laws!

Bloody Pus

unread,
Jun 27, 2004, 8:35:55 PM6/27/04
to

Susan Hogarth wrote:
[cut]


>
> No; I've explained some of the reasons why (not to mention that I feel the
> disapproving glare of Sam for starying so far off-topic).

I don't think you need concern yourself with that. He told me last
night at work that he'd check back in or a year or so. As he introduced
me to Dune, I feel a certain nostalgia for his presence here. However, I
understand his disgust.

Bloody Pus

[cut]

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 8:07:41 AM6/28/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<bQFDc.69272$wH4.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<4RgDc.68502$wH4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> Still missing the point. I could give you (or point you to) detailed
> >> outlines of possible market mechanisms for just about anything - money,
> >> legal systems, roads, schools, whatever.
> >
> > Than please do so.
>
> No; I've explained some of the reasons why (not to mention that I feel the
> disapproving glare of Sam for starying so far off-topic). You can certainly
> find lots of speculation and even proposals for various free-market
> solutions to problems of crime; if you email me offlist I can point you to
> some of them if you don't care to look yourself.

I've read hundreds of such arguments, when I was at University of
Chicago the economic department there was famous for it.

But it utterly strikes me as odd that you would hold a belief of such
a utterly radical nature that would impact the lives of every living
person in ways that could not be predicted, that you actively hold to
this belief, but can not even be bothered to outline one approach to
resolving this problem because Sam will get mad at you.

Do it for freedom girl.


>
> >> But then you would start picking
> >> at little bits and explaining how *my system* would not be perfect or
> >> would not be liked by people or whatever.
> >
> > So you do not give a program because you fear I will be critical of
> > it.
>
> No. One more time - I do not 'give a program' because freedom *is* the
> 'program'. What you do with freedom is your call, and what others do with
> freedom is their call. I don't even require you to be free, only to
> recognize my right to be free.
>


Freedom is the program, okay than let me change this. So you won't
give the plan, saying the goal, which is vague "freedom" is also the
plan. So what is the OUTCOME of the plan? What risks are possible to
the plan and what are some possible solutions, just outlined.

Again its strange to read someone so convinced of such a radical act
unwilling to discuss even the smallest realist details. I remind you
of the Iraq war, when its supporters where radically certain that an
invasion of Iraq would somehow solve the US problems in the Middle
East and also could not be bothered.

In the world I work, the business world, the acutal free market, or
kind of free, real business people want to see plans, they want cost
benefits projects, SWOT breakdowns, worst case scenario projections,
and alternative plans given likely outcomes. If the free market is to
magically solve all these problem then managers need to have practicle
plans to implement on the Day after the State ends, and I simply
wonder if you can even provide an outline of these items.


>
> > I spent 10 years as an anarchist trying to figure out how we could
> > abolish state power and each time I came up with some mechanism I
> > couldn't stick with it after thinking it through.
>
> You probably couldn't envision, plan, and construct a television set,
> either. And yet strangely enough there are such things as television sets.
>

Well I actually do have a rough idea of how the tube works, though I
could not invent one. But I have one, I have used a TV set. I also
don't speak Chinese but I have seen Chinese and so I know it exists.

I have never seen a working anarchy and in fact when the condtions of
collapsed state have been relatively true the result has always been
hell. Its like if you told me TV's can be used to transport people.
I have seen a lot of TV and I suspect you are wrong.


> Also - you seem to mix up your questions. Are you asking me how state power
> could be abolished, or how people would be provided with the things that
> now come to them through the state if the state ceased to function? You
> seem to be asking both at various points.
>


I never asked once about welfare and since this is such a minor part
of our economy, and a feature that is slowly being abolished
throughout the Capitalist world I have no concern.

Let me be entirely clear. To abolish the State you need to provide
answers to these things as far as I am concerned:

1. How will the State be abolished in practicle terms.
2. How will new States be prevented from forming.
3. How will this post state fucntion.

All three concepts are linked and its strange that you seem to think
stating that my questions involved all three is a criticism, but you
still refuse even to make a statement about possible currency
standards.

> > In the end I simply accepted that the State, like death and the fact
> > that most people would believe in God, to just be one of those things
> > I had to accept. And I got on with my life.
>
> Obviously anyone living now 'accepts' the state. I accept the state. What I
> don't do is argue that it is a legitimate or moral institution.

I don't either, I just say it is necessary.

Please don't tell me we essentailly agree. I have said over and over
and over and over again I want to see a stateless society, I just am
personally certain with a conviction many times greater than my
conviction at the start of the Iraq war that it would be a diaster
that it can't happen in our life times.


> >> But I don't propose to institiute a set
> >> of particular institutions to replace those run monopoly fashion by the
> >> state now.
> >
> > I'm not asking for you to institute anything, I am asking simply for a
> > plan to carry out your orders.
>
> What 'orders'?

The order that the state be abolished.

You seem to fail to understand that the abolish of state authority
would be itself a political act and an act of power with impact on
people's lives. And given the current voting of people an act that
most people would see as an impossition against their will.

Unless 100% of the entire population to be tossed in to anarchy agrees
to create an anarchy is by the very nature of such things an act of
power upon those who disagree.

Power relationships, I sometimes think, may just be part of the nature
of the reality we live in. Certainly to decide to abolish government
would be the greatest exercise of raw power ever in world world
history.

> >> Talking about specifics is a diversion from the primary issue. Freedom is
> >> a moral issue - people ought to be free not because I can prove it's
> >> better (although I beleive I can), but because it's *right*.
> >
> > The world, the real world, is made up of specifics and nothing else.
> > When people ignore the details and concentrate on moral absolutes I
> > get terrified.
>
> Of course. I know that absolutism terrifies those who would rather imagine
> some soft gray region where their compromises are not 'really' compromises,
> but instead 'pragmatism'.

Absolutism terrifies me because it is the universal chant of fanatics
of all kinds. Pragmatism and comprise, like tolerance, are the order
of the day.

Any person who hold to some radical proposition to which they can
provide no solid details or projections and yet still holds up to be
utterly right concerns me.

> > People are terrified of freedom, it is the last thing almost anyone
> > really wants.
>
> Projection? Nevertheless, you are welcome to be not-free if it really
> attracts you. You are not welcome to support the enslavement of those who
> *do* wish to be free.

And you are free to go off and form you own community if you want.

But if you have not yet noticed that people are terrified of freedom
than somehow you must have ignored the entire philosophical and
historical movement of the last 100 years, like you ignored its
history.

Even Rand accepted such things.

And in reality freedom is terrifying. Maybe if you tried it, and
didn't just talk about it, you would see that it takes a great deal of
courage to break away from convention and be totally free.

>
> In other words: speak for yourself. Quit trying to convince yourself that
> others really *do* want the taxes and other stat bullshit you find so
> comforting.
>

I have the results of centuries of elections to back me up. Anarchist
and libertarian groups have never even made the slighest impact on the
vote.

The vast majority of the world, event he hard right, has no interest
in what you are selling. That has been established time and time
again in polls. Anyways if people didn't want the state and prefered
freedom, as a general rule, the state would vanish. The State exists
because it is accepted. If a government is not acknowledged by its
people it will not long survive.


> > ... The reason we don't have full
> > freedom is because none of us, including yourself, take it. It would
> > be so easy for your to just go off and live in your own isolted
> > fashion free of money and state.
>
> Why would I want to be 'free' of money!? That's absurd. As you yourself
> pointed out, money is the sign of an advanced trading division-of-labor
> economy.

Because money is issued by the government, and is core to the
governments power over you. As long as you use currency you are
liable for taxes and....

Hey, your not a real anarchist at all, you don't even know the most
basic features of it.

Any anarchist would know in a second that currency is the states core
power.

What I suggested is you and your fellow team of libertarian go make it
all by yourself in your own free community, and then run for
President.

>
> [snip]

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 9:13:03 AM6/28/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Again its strange to read someone so convinced of such a radical act
> unwilling to discuss even the smallest realist details.  I remind you
> of the Iraq war, when its supporters where radically certain that an
> invasion of Iraq would somehow solve the US problems in the Middle
> East and also could not be bothered.

The difference is that they proposed *aggression*. I do not. I only propose
an ending of aggression. And -that- is why 'plans' are superfluous - if the
liberation of slaves had waited until there was a 'plan' for doing it so
that no one ever suffered, they never would have been free.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 9:17:30 AM6/28/04
to
bobbyhaqq wrote:

> Please don't tell me we essentailly agree.

Why would I do that? We don't 'essentially agree'. *Essentially*, you
believe that the state is a Good Thing, or else a Bad Thing but somehow a
Neccessary Bad Thing(!?). You seem to have this bizarre notion that
something can be both evil -and- neccessary at the same time.

We don't agree at all.

Charles Glasgow

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 4:14:25 PM6/28/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<YbUCc.74132$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> > Lets say Monday morning we abolish all state authority is removed. No
> > more police, no more military, no more money, nothing. Everyone is
> > totally and utterly free to do what they want.


>
> You mean "NO more STATE police, no more STATE military, no more STATE
> money." The things people desire and create will not simply disappear
> because the daddy-state is no longer churning them out.

I have never understood people who believe that government is nothing
more organized brigandage, but simultaneoulsy believe that in the
absence of government other brigands wouldn't organize.

--
Chuckg

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 4:25:34 PM6/28/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<KmRDc.69356$wH4.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> > Please don't tell me we essentailly agree.
>
> Why would I do that? We don't 'essentially agree'. *Essentially*, you
> believe that the state is a Good Thing, or else a Bad Thing but somehow a
> Neccessary Bad Thing(!?). You seem to have this bizarre notion that
> something can be both evil -and- neccessary at the same time.

Perhaps you have heard chemotherapy, terrible stuff with lots of
terrible side effects, but it does save a lot of people's lives.

I find it difficult to believe that you have never heard the
expression Necessary Evil. I raise rabbits, and I love rabbits, and I
understand that the Fox is the enemy of the rabbit. But without the
fox the rabbit would eat itself to death.

The world is a complex thing. As I said I grew up in Chicago and I
know the level of organization and arms that criminal organizations
who control much of the inner cities of America have. And I have no
dillusions about what these groups would pursue if freed of a State,
and that your rural gun culture would be blown out of the water.

Given the current state of humanity, and the massive complex system of
State-Culture-Market which has evolved, I accept the State as a
necessary evil. I would prefer an anarchist society along the lines
of Iain M. Banks Sci Fi novels, but I accept this is not going to
happen.

Susan trust me on this one. You will never see an anarchy develop in
the United States of America in your life time. The State will out
last both of us.

Therefore one can waste one's time in the libertarian party saying
things and running canidates and acting like you are doing anything,
or you can do the work on a personal level to build freedom.

It is my opinion that most people, yourself included, would have no
idea what it would mean to be free. You say you accept our
institution of marraige, well our singular state approved form of
marriage is the opposite of freedom, and it is not a voluntary
organization at all, its a singular state sanctioned form of sexual
bond which you can take or leave. It imposses a cultural and state
monopoly on love, bonding, and breeding and establishes a singular
form of love as good despite the free will of the individual. The
institution is actually a form of property ownership between humans, a
hold over from slavery, and one of the millions of institutions like
religion, fashion, news, education, and many others that subtly steal
our freedoms.

Saying you want to be free and have the market rule you is a simple
answer. Frankly I have worked in the free market for long enough,
Capitalism by its very nature is a form of distribution and collection
of power. As long as certain people have larger amounts of capital,
no matter if they earn it or inherit it or get lucky, they will always
have more power. In your anarchist vision, if you solved the money
problem, you would simply have a world where the richer could have
better justice, better police, better money, better everything. The
often chaotic nature of the market would impose an utter dictatorship
upon the individual, and every economist knows that in time markets
tend to monopoly formation.

I am at heart an anarchist, but I have spent a great deal of time
thinking these things out and reading some very advanced theorists in
the area, and I have had to accept that only personal liberation of a
degree is possible today.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 4:37:50 PM6/28/04
to
On 28 Jun 2004 09:14:25 -0700, in article

Nor have I. That is precisely why there is (and always will be) a market for
protection and justice services. In the absence of a free market - i.e. when
there is a government monopoly on those services - the price of protection and
justice provision will go up, and the quality of service will go down. That is
why monompolies are dangerous - and government is, fundamentally, a monopoly on
the provision of justice and security in a given territory.

What I have a hard time understanding is how people can understand that
monopolies are bad, but somehow seem to beleive that the government monopoly or
near-monopoly on money, postal services, roads, courts, etc is somehow a healthy
state of affairs.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 28, 2004, 5:11:04 PM6/28/04
to
On 28 Jun 2004 09:25:34 -0700, in article

<689922c7.04062...@posting.google.com>, bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
>Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<KmRDc.69356$wH4.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> bobbyhaqq wrote:
>>
>> > Please don't tell me we essentailly agree.
>>
>> Why would I do that? We don't 'essentially agree'. *Essentially*, you
>> believe that the state is a Good Thing, or else a Bad Thing but somehow a
>> Neccessary Bad Thing(!?). You seem to have this bizarre notion that
>> something can be both evil -and- neccessary at the same time.
>
>Perhaps you have heard chemotherapy, terrible stuff with lots of
>terrible side effects, but it does save a lot of people's lives.

Yes, it is a good thing.

>I find it difficult to believe that you have never heard the
>expression Necessary Evil.

Of course I've heard it. I reject it. If something is neccessary, then it isn't
evil. Unpleasant, maybe; but ultimately for the good.

> I raise rabbits, and I love rabbits, and I
>understand that the Fox is the enemy of the rabbit. But without the
>fox the rabbit would eat itself to death.

> ...


>Given the current state of humanity, and the massive complex system of
>State-Culture-Market which has evolved, I accept the State as a
>necessary evil.

This is because you view humans as rabbits. When you learn to view humans as
*humans* perhaps you will realise they don't need you to play Fox kill them to
save them from themselves(!?)

This touches (thank god) on Herbert; as he was concerned with the nature of
humanity and free will. Remember the BG who said their motto/mission was "Grow
up, Humans!" Well, start *treating* other humans as humans rather than as
infants or rabbits and you might be surprised.

> I would prefer an anarchist society along the lines
>of Iain M. Banks Sci Fi novels, but I accept this is not going to
>happen.
>
>Susan trust me on this one. You will never see an anarchy develop in
>the United States of America in your life time. The State will out
>last both of us.

It's fascinating how *invested* you seem to be in this belief. I have never even
suggested that the state would be gone in my lifetime and yet you seem compelled
to make me beleive it will last, and indeed must last.

>Therefore one can waste one's time in the libertarian party saying
>things and running canidates and acting like you are doing anything,
>or you can do the work on a personal level to build freedom.

Thanks for the advice. I'll manage, I expect.

>It is my opinion that most people, yourself included, would have no
>idea what it would mean to be free.

And if people like you have anythign to say about it, that will always be the
case. People will never be 'evolved' enough for freedom because they will be
sitting around on their asses getting tax-evasion advice from the government and
calling that 'impressive'.

> You say you accept our
>institution of marraige, well our singular state approved form of

>marriage is the opposite of freedom, ...

I said nothing about STATE marriage, so stop putting words in my mouth. I fully
realise that this is another area where the state encroaches on a private
matter. But what you would do is throw the baby out with the bathwater - liek
rejecting the *concept* of money simply because most or all money is currently
monopolised by the state.

> and it is not a voluntary
>organization at all, its a singular state sanctioned form of sexual
>bond which you can take or leave. It imposses a cultural and state
>monopoly on love,

I don't know what you mean by the term 'cultural monopoly'. On the one hand you
defend the state passionately because you apparently beleive people are too much
like rabbits who have to be tended by the Foxes of government, but on the toher
you moan about a 'cultural monopoly on love' and how you detest any form of
authority.

Authority is not the problem. *Force* is the problem; *coercion* is the problem.

> ...


>I am at heart an anarchist,

The hell you are. You are merely a whiner who would prefer that no authority -
legitimate or illegitimate - bothered you, but if ther's going to be an
authority you want to ensure it's the Mommy State who will take you by the hand
and help you fill out your tax forms.

> but I have spent a great deal of time
>thinking these things out and reading some very advanced theorists in
>the area, and I have had to accept that only personal liberation of a
>degree is possible today.

I have also read some and thought quite a bit, and I have concluded that the
only way people will ever have (political) freedom (nothing new-agey like
'personal liberation') is to move always *towards* it. Of course I realise that
the more people who understand this, the greater the chances of everyone to be
free.

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 29, 2004, 8:25:12 AM6/29/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<IiYDc.6929$H4....@www.newsranger.com>...

> On 28 Jun 2004 09:25:34 -0700, in article
> <689922c7.04062...@posting.google.com>, bobbyhaqq wrote:
> >
> >Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<KmRDc.69356$wH4.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >> bobbyhaqq wrote:
> >>
> >> > Please don't tell me we essentailly agree.
> >>
> >> Why would I do that? We don't 'essentially agree'. *Essentially*, you
> >> believe that the state is a Good Thing, or else a Bad Thing but somehow a
> >> Neccessary Bad Thing(!?). You seem to have this bizarre notion that
> >> something can be both evil -and- neccessary at the same time.
> >
> >Perhaps you have heard chemotherapy, terrible stuff with lots of
> >terrible side effects, but it does save a lot of people's lives.
>
> Yes, it is a good thing.
>

No it is not a good thing or a bad thing. You wold never give
radiation to a healthy person, in that case its a bad thing. When
used in limited cases to create certain conditions it is a usefull
tool with terrible side effects, as are most medicines.

Almost every medication has warnings of side effects, cost/benefit is
the nature of our world.

> >I find it difficult to believe that you have never heard the
> >expression Necessary Evil.
>
> Of course I've heard it. I reject it. If something is neccessary, then it isn't
> evil. Unpleasant, maybe; but ultimately for the good.
>

So if something is necessicary, that means it MUST happen, it is
good.

So death is good, and the invetiable death of the sun is good and if
we found the a rock was rushing towards earth at such a rate that that
would, by necessity, strike the earth in three days, that would be
good.

And if a poor man is forced to steal to feed his family that is good.

Necessity does not make something good, it simply makes it necessary.

> >Given the current state of humanity, and the massive complex system of
> >State-Culture-Market which has evolved, I accept the State as a
> >necessary evil.
>
> This is because you view humans as rabbits. When you learn to view humans as
> *humans* perhaps you will realise they don't need you to play Fox kill them to
> save them from themselves(!?)

Rabbits don't have states, in fact only humans have evolved states
because of the unique nature of human civilization and, at present and
in part, because of our desire to protect our rights and some of our
freedoms.

I view humans as humans, humans living in mostly massive urban areas
utterly depended upon each other and technology for survival. The
mixture of millions upon millions of humans living far distances from
food supplies, dependent on trillions of interactions going properly,
combined with ruthless nature of a large part of humanities criminal
element has facilitated, time and time again, the formation of an
entity with a monopoly on the use of force to oversee these operations
and to serve as a guarnateer.

So far no society which saw the sudden collapse of this State
authority has benefited from it, in fact the system begins to break
down and civil war always follows.

Rabbits can't get take a couple trucks, fill them with other rabbits
with AK-47s and raid distant areas, humans can. And it is these
differenes, and millions of others, why rabbits can live in anarchist
socities and humans can not.

In fact all the animals are anarchists, they live in tiny clans
without organized states, without money, without any civilization and
culture. And if humanity returned to primitive clannish existence it
could also give up the state, but that is impossible.

Under the current uder to disolve the government would be a diaster.


>
> This touches (thank god) on Herbert; as he was concerned with the nature of
> humanity and free will. Remember the BG who said their motto/mission was "Grow
> up, Humans!" Well, start *treating* other humans as humans rather than as
> infants or rabbits and you might be surprised.
>

Grow up Humans would be a phrase I would use for you. Stop just
chanting a single unworked out political mantra with a few insults and
start to discuss the real implications of your ideas in an adult
fashion.

This just goes on and on, as yet we have not seen you point to one
transitional form, one between state, which will get us to anarchy.
The fact is you have no idea at all how we could even create an
anarchy, you just want one and are prepared to insult anyone who
believes its impossible.


> > I would prefer an anarchist society along the lines
> >of Iain M. Banks Sci Fi novels, but I accept this is not going to
> >happen.
> >
> >Susan trust me on this one. You will never see an anarchy develop in
> >the United States of America in your life time. The State will out
> >last both of us.
>
> It's fascinating how *invested* you seem to be in this belief.

Yes, becasue it is one I have spend hundreds of hours developing and
thinking over, unlike you. I have spent a great deal of time actually
doing the work of thinking about anarchy, of learning how government
and society work and interact in history and in other cultures. I am
at heart an anarchist, but unlike you I took the time to think these
things out and are am invested in beliefs becuase I came up with them.


> I have never even
> suggested that the state would be gone in my lifetime and yet you seem compelled
> to make me beleive it will last, and indeed must last.
>


Then what is your point. My point is that an anarchy is a good thing
but its not possible right now and may happen, I hope, in the future.
I have said again and again and again that we need to work towards an
anarchist state.

Its clear your just hitting the response button and scanning for a few
lines to insult. This point I have written out so many times I am
getting sick.

I want to see the state go, but it just is not possible. That must be
the 10th time I have said pretty much that same point in this thread.
In fact at the top of the post you respond to I call it a necessary
evil, not precisely a stunning defense for the eternity of the state.


> >Therefore one can waste one's time in the libertarian party saying
> >things and running canidates and acting like you are doing anything,
> >or you can do the work on a personal level to build freedom.
>
> Thanks for the advice. I'll manage, I expect.
>

Frankly I doubt it. I imagine you live your life in a conventional
way following all the conventional institutions that oppress humanity
and make our current state of almost no freedom possible. At
libertarian meetings your say that the free market should be running
everything, but then you will go back home to a life conditioned
entirely for you by your culture (the real enemy of all anarchists not
the state).

As I said I too am an anarchist, I just spent more time thinking about
it and as a true anarchist I never joined a party of anarchists. I
see that the true issue is culture not the state. That our present
culture forces us to have a state and we need to follow a set of long
term goals to pursue an anarchist state. We need to disolve social
institutions that condition behavior and set up formal life patterns,
which approve certain decisions and not others, like marriage, we need
to start a process where every person will be free to select their own
lives, what they ware, what they eat, what they speak, how they work,
when they work, what they do, who they love, how they love, what music
they listen to. All of these things are today conditioned by culture
which is what gives to the state the power to control us.

We have such a long long way to go. Today deviation is generally
treated as either criminal or insanity. People confirm in mass when
there is no reason to, people at companies all dress essentially the
same as others, even at more informal companies, people are
conditioned endless by advertising, religion, school, etc etc to
behave in certain set ways.

This is the beginning.


> >It is my opinion that most people, yourself included, would have no
> >idea what it would mean to be free.
>
> And if people like you have anythign to say about it, that will always be the
> case. People will never be 'evolved' enough for freedom because they will be
> sitting around on their asses getting tax-evasion advice from the government and
> calling that 'impressive'.
>

Not tax evasion, tax management. And yes I am impressed that the UK
IRS told me how to limit my tax liability. Was I happy to pay, no,
but I did decide I wanted to live in a culture other than the one I
was born in and got me and my company and my ass over here. I made on
free decision: that just because I was born in America perhaps I would
want to start a business in another nation.

I am free to think this, and it was not much, but how many people even
do that. Most people, if they can, will stay where they were born for
their lives and live as their parents.

> > You say you accept our
> >institution of marraige, well our singular state approved form of
> >marriage is the opposite of freedom, ...
>
> I said nothing about STATE marriage, so stop putting words in my mouth. I fully
> realise that this is another area where the state encroaches on a private
> matter. But what you would do is throw the baby out with the bathwater - liek
> rejecting the *concept* of money simply because most or all money is currently
> monopolised by the state.

Without a marriage license there is no marrige.

Marriage by its very nature requires that someone in authority accept
the marriage in a ceremony. I was amazed to learn what the Catholic
Church was forcing people to do to get married, entire brain washing
retreats just to have a service. Power is not only held by the state
you know.

Marriage in any form is simply Culture exercising power and nothing
else. I see little advantage to a church having power or company over
a state and frankly I find libertarians stupid for not seeing this.

The very institution of marriage imposses upon individuals a set of
behaviours relating to love and bonding with sanctions certain conduct
and censures other. There is no baby in the bath water. In an
anarchist state there would be no ritual of bonding, no offical terms
given to women when they change status, and no property rights through
such bonds granted to people.

If individuals want to live together they simply would. If they felt
the need to make bonds between each other they would make the bonds
themselves, and perhaps invite their friends or not. But it would be
a selection of their choic.

All ritual, all ceremony, all pre-established traditions are the
enemies of anarcism, and through the fact our culture has evolved
marriage the State is able to get a lot of power over us. If
Ameircans stopped wanting to get married and just lived in their own
bonds the state would lose a major part of its power.

Culture gives the state its power and each state is defined and
created by the way its culture gives it power.

>
> > and it is not a voluntary
> >organization at all, its a singular state sanctioned form of sexual
> >bond which you can take or leave. It imposses a cultural and state
> >monopoly on love,
>
> I don't know what you mean by the term 'cultural monopoly'. On the one hand you
> defend the state passionately because you apparently beleive people are too much
> like rabbits who have to be tended by the Foxes of government, but on the toher
> you moan about a 'cultural monopoly on love' and how you detest any form of
> authority.
>

I have been very clear on this. I first see the state as only a small
part of what is holding us from freedom, and given our current culture
I accept the state as better than the possible alternatives.

As yet you have not named one alternative.


> Authority is not the problem. *Force* is the problem; *coercion* is the problem.
>

Bullshit. Your not an anarchist at all. Power that buys you off with
rewards takes freedom as much as anything else. 99% of power is in
the form of rewards and it is the ability of certain institutions,
most of them non-government, to provide people things they need, or
think they want, that allows power to collect in the hands of certain
groups and individuals.

The most effective way to control any animal is through rewards and
our culture takes our freedom away by praise and recognition, like a
marriage ceremony, than any other means.

> > ...
> >I am at heart an anarchist,
>
> The hell you are. You are merely a whiner who would prefer that no authority -
> legitimate or illegitimate - bothered you, but if ther's going to be an
> authority you want to ensure it's the Mommy State who will take you by the hand
> and help you fill out your tax forms.

I'm I whiner, gee thats cute.

Not are you not an anarchist, you have an utter lack of any
understanding beyond a few minute libertarian lecture about what
anarchy would be.

And what have you done. Do you refuse to use the governments money,
have you and your friends gone and created say an organization of
anarchists indepenedent of the state where you can work on your ideas.

I have yet to hear anything you have ever done but complain yourself.

Can you name one thing you have done but cry "I want to be free".
You've done nothing, and voting Libertarian is less than doing nothing
because it has had no effect at all and only made you feel you have
done your part.

Again I suggest you and your friends find some place to establish your
anarchist state and get back to the rest of us in 5 years about how it
is going.

> > but I have spent a great deal of time
> >thinking these things out and reading some very advanced theorists in
> >the area, and I have had to accept that only personal liberation of a
> >degree is possible today.
>
> I have also read some and thought quite a bit,

That I actually profoundly doubt.


> and I have concluded that the
> only way people will ever have (political) freedom (nothing new-agey like
> 'personal liberation') is to move always *towards* it.

And yet you have not even presented one step in dozens of post as to
how that is going to be done.


> Of course I realise that
> the more people who understand this, the greater the chances of everyone to be
> free.

Its going to take a lot more than just that.

We need to build in people the confidence to not rely upon traditional
institutions and forms to define their lives. We need to exchange a
work ethic for a play ethic where humans create what they need for the
joy of work rather than for money paid, we need to make violence and
weapons of any form taboo so that someone doesn't take over the state
and establish themselves.

Jeff Teunissen

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 9:10:01 AM6/30/04
to
JDisco wrote:
>
> Great thread, BTW.
>
> I think that if you define liberal by juxtaposing it with a
> conservative. I start to see that the conservative is an 'every man
> for himself' kind of guy, while the liberal see's that the
> conservative will tread on the lower class in order to make a better
> life for himself, and say 'Wait! we need laws to keep the
> conservatives in check! We need workers rights, and womens rights and
> civil liberties!" They would regulate those things that would not be
> given by the 'Mans man'

See, this is the trap.

The labels of "liberal" and "conservative" have nothing to do with values.

At their essense, a liberal is one who wants to change things, and a
conservative is one that doesn't want to change things, or who wants to roll
things back to some former state. I believe Leto II describes a conservative
as a person who "would prefer the past, any past, to the situation he finds
himself in", before reminding Stilgar that his past goes back further than
anyone other than his own sister.

We like to attach certain values to the words based on our own cultures, but
they are not part of their meanings.

In the USA, one of the metrics by which liberalism and conservatism are
measured is how one interprets the Constitution.

A true (constitutional) conservative would say that the Constitution means
exactly what it said, and that most of the things done in the last century
were illegal and should be done away with. Like Medicare, Social Security,
etc, pretty-much everything in the New Deal and following it -- because
those powers are not enumerated in the Constitution and must be provided by
the states, if at all.

Contrariwise, a true (constitutional) liberal interprets the Constitution as
malleable, something to be changed at will to be whatever the needs of the
country are at the moment, perhaps that the New Deal just didn't go far
enough, etc.

Going too far in either direction--on most subjects--is dangerous.

Other metrics may be fiscal policy, social policy, foreign policy (George
Washington and his "entangling alliances" warning, for example), social
mores, sexual practices, and so on. Whatever you think needs to be changed,
or shouldn't be changed, or was better in the past.

I'm sure we can all find something to be conservative about, and something
we feel liberal about. But when a liberal becomes a Liberal(tm), they want
to remake the world in their own image. Herbert, or at least Leto II (let's
not forget that Herbert did not merely use his characters as mouthpieces),
saw in this pattern the seeds of a future aristocrat.

[snip]

--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 11:21:06 AM6/30/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<yPXDc.6927$H4....@www.newsranger.com>...

> On 28 Jun 2004 09:14:25 -0700, in article

> Nor have I. That is precisely why there is (and always will be) a market for


> protection and justice services. In the absence of a free market - i.e. when
> there is a government monopoly on those services - the price of protection and
> justice provision will go up, and the quality of service will go down. That is
> why monompolies are dangerous - and government is, fundamentally, a monopoly on
> the provision of justice and security in a given territory.
>


I agree with you on your assessment of the state as a monopoly, and a
pretty poor one, but you seem to miss the central concept of all
economic models: that a free market system will tend towards monopoly.

This simply is always the case. Given any game of economic nature one
player, if by pure chance alone, will gain an advantage and use that
advantage to reduce overall costs of an offering to clients, including
search costs via branding.

When I work as the system designer on a game called Sell! which used a
fairly basic model of consumer decision making, we had is tentatively
okayed by a number of economists in the Business School. It simply
took all the movies of each player and assigned a cost, including all
expenses and benefits, to sets of consumers for those moves.

When we ran it we were interested to see if we would get saddle points
at Nash equiblirium or more classic outcome of Monopoly formation.
Time and time again a team of players would dwindle and a single
player would have enough market share to drive all others out. We ran
three tests with three very different groups of players over a year
and always got the same result. In time free market economies almost
always tend to monopoly.

So any time you talk about unregulated market behaviour you are
generally, in time, talking about monopolies, monopolies that voters
will have no impact on.

This is why I find you libertarian worship of the Capitalist system
funny. You simply have not thought through the issue. Rather than
serving as an alternative to the state the Capitalist system not only
propes up the State, is its main supporter and benefits the most, and
has a set tendency to monopolize power.


> What I have a hard time understanding is how people can understand that
> monopolies are bad, but somehow seem to beleive that the government monopoly or
> near-monopoly on money, postal services, roads, courts, etc is somehow a healthy
> state of affairs.

Well technically speaking government is not entirely a monopoly, in
the United States and EU countries, because though they have the sole
right to the use of force the government at any time faces opposition
from outside parties who through only a plurality of the vote can
replace it.

Probably, also, the main role of government's rise in economic policy
over the last 120 years has been to stem monopoly formation in the
market sector. There is just such a tendency for the number of firms
in any sector to dwindle. I recall Linux being presented as this open
source alternative to Windows, only to now have a situation where Red
Hat essentially owns Linux.

That is probably because there are certain situations where monopolies
are not so bad. In OS a computer programmer wants to know standards
of the platform they are developing for, and these are most
effectively either established by one form or aggreed upon by a few
firms who control the market. If there were thousands of bespoke OS
computer development would either require everyone follow a certain
set of standards, which means no one can gain a competitive advantage
and the one able to offer the lowest price would seee monopoly
formation, or it would simply be impossible to conduct the business.

So for computing to work, along with banking, investment, cars, just
about anything, industry wide standards need to be agreed upon via a
contract. Actually more power is held in this fashion than is by the
state. I have never been forced by any State at the point of a gun,
but I have had to confirm to industry standards.

These standards then can agree, in mass, upon a body to oversee
compliance and this body can, via a contract, agree to comply. In
fact these bodies are essential to business conduct with everything
from interest rates to the price of oil happily arranged to secure
business positions.

I imagine in theory this is the idea of democracy. Since at present
standards of all kinds are needed, or believed to be needed, some
final arbitrater of these standards must exist. The process of voting
makes this everyone's business.

Charles Glasgow

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 12:14:17 PM6/30/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<yPXDc.6927$H4....@www.newsranger.com>...

> >I have never understood people who believe that government is nothing
> >more organized brigandage, but simultaneoulsy believe that in the
> >absence of government other brigands wouldn't organize.

> Nor have I. That is precisely why there is (and always will be) a market for
> protection and justice services. In the absence of a free market - i.e. when
> there is a government monopoly on those services - the price of protection and
> justice provision will go up, and the quality of service will go down.

And in the absence of a regulatory authority, what incentive is there
to maintain quality of service?

In the effective absence of government, it's a lot less work for the
formation of armed people that I hired to protect me to just turn
around and rip me off themselves than it would be for them to stick
around and loyally protect me against external dangers. Both ways,
they get my money. One way, they bleed a lot less for it. (After
all, if I was capable of holding off a band of armed briganda by
myself, I wouldn't have hired them in the first place!).

Don't believe me? Then check into exactly how and when the Mafia got
started. Short version -- when the armed retainers that Sicilian
landowners had raised and armed to protect them and their lands during
a widespread breakdown of public order suddenly realized that 'Hey, we
can start shaking down these rich guys *ourselves*! I mean, who can
stop us?'

And thus, good ol' "Death To The French Is Italy's Cry" went screamin'
straight down the morality ladder at warp speed, from 'local
partisans' down through 'hired mercenaries' and straight into
'organized crime'. And there they've stayed.

[snip]


> What I have a hard time understanding is how people can understand that
> monopolies are bad,

Monopolies are bad *for prices*.

There are some things, however, when price is the lesser concern. As
the old saying goes -- "Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two."

> but somehow seem to beleive that the government monopoly or near-monopoly on
> money, postal services, roads, courts, etc is somehow a healthy state of
> affairs.

I might also point out that in a democracy or a republic, the
government is composed of people who can be changed. (In a
totalitarian state, of course, they can't be changed... which is why
totalitarianism sucks far worse than democracy.)

--
Chuckg

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 2:28:15 PM6/30/04
to
On 30 Jun 2004 04:21:06 -0700, in article

<689922c7.04063...@posting.google.com>, bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
>Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<yPXDc.6927$H4....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> On 28 Jun 2004 09:14:25 -0700, in article
>
>> Nor have I. That is precisely why there is (and always will be) a market for
>> protection and justice services. In the absence of a free market - i.e. when
>> there is a government monopoly on those services - the price of protection and
>> justice provision will go up, and the quality of service will go down. That is
>> why monompolies are dangerous - and government is, fundamentally, a monopoly on
>> the provision of justice and security in a given territory.
>
>I agree with you on your assessment of the state as a monopoly, and a
>pretty poor one, but you seem to miss the central concept of all
>economic models: that a free market system will tend towards monopoly.

Thi is not true - nor is it 'the central concept of all economic models'.
Monopolies can *only* be sustained by the use (or threat of) force. A free
market involves competition. Cartels and monopolies do not last *unless* they
are supported by the government - such as the medical establishment here in the
US.

[snip Gameboy economic analysis: GIGO]

[snip more state apologia]

I'm not interested in debating with you this far off-topic. A discussion can
move in interesting ways, but there's no need for pages of argumentation so far
astray from the topic. I will point out gross errors on your part, but otherwise
if you'd like to discuss economics or politics outside of Herbert email me
off-list.

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 2:58:56 PM6/30/04
to
On 30 Jun 2004 05:14:17 -0700, in article

<9e6aa7ec.04063...@posting.google.com>, Charles Glasgow wrote:
>
>Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<yPXDc.6927$H4....@www.newsranger.com>...
>
>> >I have never understood people who believe that government is nothing
>> >more organized brigandage, but simultaneoulsy believe that in the
>> >absence of government other brigands wouldn't organize.
>
>> Nor have I. That is precisely why there is (and always will be) a market for
>> protection and justice services. In the absence of a free market - i.e. when
>> there is a government monopoly on those services - the price of protection and
>> justice provision will go up, and the quality of service will go down.
>
>And in the absence of a regulatory authority, what incentive is there
>to maintain quality of service?

People who desire quality will purchase from those who provide it.

[snip]

>I might also point out that in a democracy or a republic, the
>government is composed of people who can be changed. (In a
>totalitarian state, of course, they can't be changed... which is why
>totalitarianism sucks far worse than democracy.)

Of course rulers in a totalitaraian state can be changed. Bullets, ballots;
frankly I don't see much of a difference. Except perhaps that bullets are more
effective!

Charles Glasgow

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 11:27:21 PM6/30/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<QyAEc.7102$H4...@www.newsranger.com>...

> >And in the absence of a regulatory authority, what incentive is there
> >to maintain quality of service?
>
> People who desire quality will purchase from those who provide it.

Purchase *with what*? And *from who*?

I am appalled, but not surprised, that you completely snipped the main
point of my post... didn't have a way to refute the argument?

In the scenario you posit, the most likely outcome is that the armed
bands of 'protectors' will realize that they can have just as much
income with far less work and bloodshed simply by shaking down their
employers. As witness the historical examples.

In the unlikely-but-best-case outcome, one or several bands of
'protectors' will adhere to a code of honor, team up to obliterate the
other bands of brigands, and then keep the public order according to
their rules, maintaining a monopoly of the usage of organized armed
forces in the area for their alliance of like-minded agencies alone
and running out or slaying those who *won't* adhere to their standards
and practices, and collecting $$$ from the inhabitants of that area in
return for their doing so...

... and congratulations, I just described a government.

When you pare all the rhetorical fat away, a government is that entity
that reserves unto itself the authority to dictate exactly how, why,
and by whom force may be used within the territory that they claim...
and to punish and/or eliminate those who would use force not in
accordance with their dictates. To use a browser analogy, what I just
described in the prior sentence is the core Firefox browser.
Everything else government does is a plug-in or a browser extension.

By definition, maintaining public order in a given area requires
monopolizing the right to use force against others within that area.
It's not "order" if people are hitting people under circumtances of
which you don't approve, now is it? Even in areas where there is a
right to keep and bear arms, the keepers of order maintain a monopoly
on the *right* to use force... if you use force outside the
circumstances that *they* have chosen to *allow* you, off to the
hoosegow you go! So the right to use force is their monopoly.

Your anarchistic dream is absolutely unworkable. Whether the size of
the territory they control be a country, a state, a city, or hell,
even just a block, that territory will still be *controlled* by some
entity or some group of entities. It'll *have* to be. If it's not,
then by definition, nobody's keeping order. At which point, cue the
chaos that we were trying to warn you about.

You can talk about 'hired private security contractors' all you want,
but in the absence of any other government, those private security
contractors automatically cease to be private -- and instead become
the new local government entity. Because if they're not enforcing
somebody else's rules... and in the absence of all government, there
*are* nobody else's rules... then whose rules *are* they enforcing?

The rules *they* want.

(To forestall the obvious response -- no, they're not enforcing the
rules their clients want. If the clients want something different
than what the contractors want, then the contractors will either
coerce the clients into changing their minds, or they'll move on and
find someplace where the rules *are* they way they want.)

--
Chuckg

Susan Hogarth

unread,
Jun 30, 2004, 11:59:04 PM6/30/04
to
Charles Glasgow wrote:

> Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> news:<QyAEc.7102$H4...@www.newsranger.com>...
>
>> >And in the absence of a regulatory authority, what incentive is there
>> >to maintain quality of service?
>>
>> People who desire quality will purchase from those who provide it.
>
> Purchase *with what*? And *from who*?
>
> I am appalled, but not surprised, that you completely snipped the main
> point of my post... didn't have a way to refute the argument?

It's simply that I am trying to disengage from this particular line of
argument because I think it's gone too far astray from Herbert. I chose not
to reply point-by-point. If you're interested we can take the discussion
backchannel.

[snip]

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jul 1, 2004, 6:48:55 AM7/1/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<ctIEc.79480$2o2.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> Charles Glasgow wrote:
>
> > Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message
> > news:<QyAEc.7102$H4...@www.newsranger.com>...
> >
> >> >And in the absence of a regulatory authority, what incentive is there
> >> >to maintain quality of service?
> >>
> >> People who desire quality will purchase from those who provide it.
> >
> > Purchase *with what*? And *from who*?
> >
> > I am appalled, but not surprised, that you completely snipped the main
> > point of my post... didn't have a way to refute the argument?
>
> It's simply that I am trying to disengage from this particular line of
> argument because I think it's gone too far astray from Herbert. I chose not
> to reply point-by-point. If you're interested we can take the discussion
> backchannel.

This is becoming something of a mantra on this group.

I remind people the group is called alt.fan.dune; that is it is an
ALTERNATIVE, intended to be rather free form by its nature, group for
the FANS or DUNE.

Now if the fans of dune want to institute some strange convention that
as a group they only talk about Dune. As with any fairly small
collection of personalities ideas will be discussed.

Smaller grops like this tend to be international cafes and it is a bit
strange that when the fans of dune collect they should have some rule
that only Dune will be discussed.

I also notice this rule is only pulled out after an OT topic has gone
on for a long time, and sometimes just when it is getting interesting.

Charles Glasgow

unread,
Jul 1, 2004, 1:10:24 PM7/1/04
to
Susan Hogarth <s...@ncliberty.net> wrote in message news:<ctIEc.79480$2o2.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> Charles Glasgow wrote:

> > Purchase *with what*? And *from who*?
> >
> > I am appalled, but not surprised, that you completely snipped the main
> > point of my post... didn't have a way to refute the argument?
>
> It's simply that I am trying to disengage from this particular line of
> argument because I think it's gone too far astray from Herbert. I chose not
> to reply point-by-point.

The only way to truly 'disengage' from an argument is to not reply,
period. What you're doing is trying to have it both ways at once...
ugh.

--
Chuckg

bobbyhaqq

unread,
Jul 2, 2004, 2:35:29 PM7/2/04
to
cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote in message news:<9e6aa7ec.04070...@posting.google.com>...


This is becoming a pathetic pattern on this group, which is a
discussion forum for fans of Dune, an alternative chat room at that.

They go on for a while ranting and raving and when people raise
opposition they then say that the subject does not concern Dune.

Well part of books is that the set you on paths of thinking, great
one. And sadly Dune is being hurt by Dune fans, who are trying to do
to it was the Star Trek fans did to the more solid grounding of the
older show, turn it in to a sex up sci fi idiocy fest.

BoogieLooge

unread,
Jan 18, 2005, 11:31:11 PM1/18/05
to
Why don't you go fuck yourself, you ridiculous little ur-virgin?

BoogieLooge

unread,
Jan 19, 2005, 12:47:32 AM1/19/05
to
The above was in reference to that known-to-be pathetic emotional
retard, ChuckG

maru

unread,
Jan 19, 2005, 12:55:50 AM1/19/05
to
My interest is piqued: how can someone be an ur-virgin? My best
understanding of the word leads me to believe that you mean something
like 'primordial, original, base virgin; the virgin from whom all other
virgins are cast: the virgin of virgins, of whom all other virgins are
pathetic unpuissant imitations.' Is this an insult? And besides, if he
did fuck himself, he would cease to be a virgin, obviating the first
part of what you apparently meant to be an insult.
My advice, oh you-who-are-named-after-something-disgusting is to make
your insults intelligible.

~Maru
When did virgin cease to have positive connotations?

BoogieLooge

unread,
Jan 20, 2005, 2:07:30 AM1/20/05
to
May I congratulate you on your diction and use of language?

There certainly is nothing wrong with virginity. It is a valid choice,
and highly recommended when one is young and unable to handle the
realities of sex.

Except of course, when you are an angry little fuck-tard sociopath like
ChuckG.

Thanks!

0 new messages