Possibilism and Impossibilism

[Joe Hillshoist]

Yeah, but do you need a state to enforce them?

(BTW DrV, I hoped I was helping to illustrate your point.)

[Nordic]

of course you do. otherwise it's the wild, wild west.

the gangsters take over one way or another. unless you get it right.

just like we all don't want to grind our own eyeglasses amd make our own shoes, we all don't want to have to play cop, either.

[Joe Hillshoist]

of course you do. otherwise it's the wild, wild west.

the gangsters take over one way or another. unless you get it right.

just like we all don't want to grind our own eyeglasses amd make our own shoes, we all don't want to have to play cop, either.

There was no "state" in pre invasion Australia. Law was more a cultural thing. IE Everyone knew it, and cos everyone knew everyone else or at least where they came from then I guess it was easier to enforce ... not everyone "played cop" but everyone had equal access.

If there is a role for the state in this its when societies are too big to enable one or two degrees of separation.

And you can have a court without a state if the court can mobilise the opinion of people - and use their good will to the process to back it up.

[vanlose kid]

*

first, this exchange.

Your taco stand is blocking my view. I don't want it there. Besides, that piece of ground is mine.

Yeah? And what are you gonna do about it pal!!

thus the necessity for clearly defined laws and regulations.

i was of a mind to dismiss this at first, then i worked out a long piece on the why and wherefore of its dubiousness as a sincere objection, and junked that for being way too obvious. now, looking at it again and having worked on a reply to Nordic (next post), i'll say this.

i don't believe such an objection makes sense in a void. to say "Your taco stand is blocking my view. I don't want it there. Besides, that piece of ground is mine" involves an entire conceptual framework or form of life, i.e. that we have a shared understanding or agreement re concepts and their function within a form of life.

what first struck me is the first part of the objection, i.e. "Your taco stand is blocking my view. I don't want it there." without the final qualification: "Besides, that piece of ground is mine", it doesn't make sense to me. which is to say, i tried to imagine a situation where i would take it seriously as a sincere and meaningful objection worthy of consideration and couldn't. that however is not the same as saying that i couldn't imagine a situation in which it could be said. the question is whether it would be meaningful.

here's a scenario. some person D owns a plot of land and a building on that plot of land that affords him a view, say a 270 degree panorama from his bedroom balcony, and outside his plot of land, say, across the street, N desides to place his taco stand. (all of this of course on the assumption that it makes sense commercially etc., for N to place it there). N does so and D says "Your taco stand is blocking my view. I don't want it there". now imagine what shared undertanding, laws and restrictions must be in place for D's objection to be a valid claim. to be honest, i find it hard to imagine a sense in which D's objection can be taken seriously for several reasons:

1. what harm has N caused D in this case apart from offending his aesthetic sense or whatever and possibly causing some form of psychological trauma be depriving D of "his view"? (just reading that back the absurdity of the claim screams to high heaven as far as i'm concerned.)

2. say there is a world in which some legal structure in place where so absurd a claim is taken seriously -- not that hard to imagine given that we live in such a world, or one very close to it -- what sort of laws would have to be in place to make D's claim successful? laws we already have and are familiar with, where someone in N's situation might face endless legal harassment and loss of income and possibly incur a great amount of debt fighting someone rich enough to see the claim through courts in order to force N from placing his taco stand in a place where someone such as D might be visually or aesthetically offended. either that or N gives up the taco stand or moves right away because, as far as i know, a world in which D's claim is taken seriously, is in all probability a world in which N has no chance of winning. a world that has already gone insane.

3. D has then the ability to enforce with the help of a legal system a claim so absurd that any talk of a justice on the part of that legal system would be nonsense.

4. imagine having to determine how much of D's field of vision is to be preserved from any possible offense to his sensitivity. e.g. within that 270 degree fild of vision, how far from the horizon would it be legal for N to place his taco stand. does it make sense to even talk in these terms or consider these "possibilities"? not to me.

5. a world such as the one described above would in all probability also take seriously claims such as this: "women should not wear trousers because it offends my aesthetic appreciation of difference between the sexes", or "the poor and destitute should not be allowed in certain areas because it drives down property values and offends the sensibilities of property owners who, although they acknowledge the existence of poverty and hardship, would like to be able to freely relax after a hard day tallying their profits on the stock exchange".

6. so when Nordic says that there is a "necessity for clearly defined laws and regulations" to handle such cases i shudder, literally. they don't seem necessary, not to me. they seem vainglorious, ridiculous, tyrannical, absurd, senseless, heartless, mindless and should not be countenanced at all.

7: a world where ownership of a view is included in the legal definition of rightful property and enforced by law is hateful, and such laws are worthy of nothing but contempt.

now that was without the qualification. if reinstated thus "Your taco stand is blocking my view. I don't want it there. Besides, that piece of ground is mine", two things can be said.

1. with the reinstatement of the qualification "... Besides, that piece of ground is mine", the first two objections are spurious. because if N, for whatever reason (and on the assumption that it makes commercial sense), wittingly or not, did place his taco stand on D's property, that fact alone suffices as grounds for D rightfully asking N to remove it from D's property. -- D's aesthetic sensibilities have no role to play at all.

2. now is the existence of a legal system necessary to resolve this? i think not.

that's as far as my imagination could get me.

*

[vanlose kid]

of course you do. otherwise it's the wild, wild west.

the gangsters take over one way or another. unless you get it right.

just like we all don't want to grind our own eyeglasses amd make our own shoes, we all don't want to have to play cop, either.

There was no "state" in pre invasion Australia. Law was more a cultural thing. IE Everyone knew it, and cos everyone knew everyone else or at least where they came from then I guess it was easier to enforce ... not everyone "played cop" but everyone had equal access.

If there is a role for the state in this its when societies are too big to enable one or two degrees of separation.

And you can have a court without a state if the court can mobilise the opinion of people - and use their good will to the process to back it up.

yes.

*

[barracuda]

2. say there is a world in which some legal structure in place where so absurd a claim is taken seriously -- not that hard to imagine given that we live in such a world, or one very close to it -- what sort of laws would have to be in place to make D's claim successful? laws we already have and are familiar with, where someone in N's situation might face endless legal harassment and loss of income and possibly incur a great amount of debt fighting someone rich enough to see the claim through courts in order to force N from placing his taco stand in a place where someone such as D might be visually or aesthetically offended. either that or N gives up the taco stand or moves right away because, as far as i know, a world in which D's claim is taken seriously, is in all probability a world in which N has no chance of winning. a world that has already gone insane.

It's probably far less absurd and more mundane a situation than might be considered at first glance, which is why a huge area of law exists already regarding the zoning of areas in which certain types of businesses and structures are permitted by municipalities, for reasons as vital to the community as concerns involving health and food preparation issues, to reasons as seemingly trivial as the view out one's window. These types of laws are really only sensible in the context of a community which has agreed upon them for the better good of all, and the structure of the municipal organisation charged with oversight of such issues is certainly one of the more pedestrian causes of organised government and law to come to bear at all in the first place. Such disagreements are an organic outgrowth of the pressures of communities of a certain size and character in which formal and enforcable agreements must be in place to limit certain activities and by doing so more equitably distributing both opportunity and certain aspects of freedom.

Taco stands are one of the leading causes of petty bureaucracy, unfortunately.

[Nordic]

re: pre-invasion australia:

but wasn't that a situation that was more tribal as opposed to modern towns and cities?

[vanlose kid]

*

now this.

well, vk, based on the definition of capitalism you provided of course i woukd have to agree with all that you say. the current system is corrupt to the core.

a lot of people think that "capitalism" means free markets. i guess i'm one of them. at a non corporate level i think this is a natural part of human interaction and you couldn't abolish it if you tried (i.e. anything for which there is a black market).

we don't really disagree except perhaps in one way, which is that i believe the only practical way to have any hope to fix anything is to change the system that's already sort of in place, meaning those institutions that people are already familiar with.

take banks. simply nationalize them and turn them into public utilities. no more profit motive for the banks. their job would be to provide loans in a way that was good for the commons and not just for the people who were already rich.

i suppose what i'm getting at is a type of what many people would call socialism. i don't like labels because they always have connotations. i can't riff too much on any of this because i'm on a job and typing this with my thumbnails.

but in your plan to overthrow and abolish capitalism, what are you hoping to replace it with? you may have written about this before for all i know, but if you have i don't recall it.

i'm curious how you would see the abolishment of capitalism unfold. i'm not being facetious or anything, i really want to know because my regard for you is very high.

Nordic, to answer your questions i'm going to first cover some of the same ground but come at it from a different direction. here's a poster you probably know:



now that is a spot on depiction of the capitalist plantation -- our world. it may seem antiquated to some so here's a link to a modernized version.

it is not only a depiction of the capitalist economic system, it's also a picture of the structure of our society.

what it should tell you, if you look closely, is that a notion such as "egalitarian capitalist democracy" is a piece of nonsense. there can be no equality in a capitalist system except perhaps in one sense only: equality of opportunity (to claw your way up from the bottom) but even that is something of a lie.

one tenet of capitalism in its modern form, one of its sale pitches, is "trickle down economy". the operative terms being "trickle" and "down". what comes down trickles. what is sucked upwards however...

the shape of the system: a pyramid, is the default shape of any state. it is, to get all platonic about it, the Form of the State. all states are ordered heirarchically, all.

a pyramid is a ponzi scheme. that is the structure of our so called economy.

at the top tier of that pyramid stand the "nobility" or "aristocracy" or, in a secular liberal state, the "elite" -- i.e. the ruling class. getting rid of any symbolic representatives of that class, e.g. the monarch, does not rid us of the problem. a secular state differs from a monarchy only in appearance.

getting rid of the priesthood in a relgious state does not rid one of priesthoods. there are secular priesthoods. they serve the same function as gatekeepers, managers and propagandists.

then come their immediate servants and beneficiaries. the rich. merchants etc.

they comprise the superstructure.

at the base: serfs, workers, slaves, commoners, citizens, etc. same difference.

this structure, this pyramid, is Babylon system. which brings me to my previous reply from yesterday -- a rephrasing of one of your questions.

...

two friends, one catholic (A), one a former catholic (B) are talking. B has renounced the church, and all its works, and all its pomp, and all its service, and wants to abolish it entirely and A says: Fine, but what are you going to put in its place?

...

*

now to your question: "in your plan to overthrow and abolish capitalism, what are you hoping to replace it with?"

my answer to that would be the same as B's answer to A: "Nothing".

but with all due respect and no offence meant, i think it's the wrong question.

look at that pyramid again. what is the right question? this:

"if we get rid of the superstructure, of capitalism, of the state, what are we left with?"

the base. that is to say, the only logically and empirically necessary part of a pyramid. that's us.

we support them but we're told its the other way round. that is, of course, an illusion. in fact it is the illusion -- what buddha called maya. what Goering who perverted all truth called the big lie.

we support them. now if we can do that, what can't we do?

if we tear down the superstructure why should we replace it with anything? why build a new pyramid? it makes no sense. that we feel an urge to do so because we've been "taught" that the pyramid must be and that the superstructure is necessary is only significant when taken in conjunction with the realization of another fact: what is the answer to the question "who has been teaching us that a state is necessary for our existence"?

this is where left-statist, whether possibilists or impossibilists, went wrong. where the revolutionary communists went wrong. they claimed that they had to replace the existing structure with a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to have it slowly disappear in the course of materialist history or whatever (cf., my Bakunin posts in the left libertarian thread).

sometimes i suspect they only sold a new version of the old lie and knew they would never disappear.

if we refused to support them, if we tore down the superstructure of oppression we're left with each other and that is more than enough power, kindness and creativity to form a society of equals with no masters. a circle of circles. law would be an agreement among equals.

not a pyramid. a circle. the perfect form.

*

on edit: refusing to support them, turning our back on Babylon system, going walkabout exodus out of Egypt, overthrowing Pharoah and all who stand with him, that is not impossible.

what is impossible is continuing to support them in the hope that they will change.

*

[DrVolin]

i tried to imagine a situation where i would take it seriously as a sincere and meaningful objection worthy of consideration and couldn't.

We must live in very different worlds, because in mine, it happens all the time. And even with our existing Pax Bureaucratica, the solution is too often still a match and some gasoline. There has to be a meeting of minds between a necessarily small number of individuals or small groups before entering into a social contract that makes anarchy a viable form of organization. Anarchy doesn't grow wild. Chaos does. Anarchy is carefully planted in neat rows on prepared soil, and lovingly cultivated for as long as possible. Which is probably not very long.

[vanlose kid]

i tried to imagine a situation where i would take it seriously as a sincere and meaningful objection worthy of consideration and couldn't.

We must live in very different worlds, because in mine, it happens all the time. And even with our existing Pax Bureaucratica, the solution is too often still a match and some gasoline. There has to be a meeting of minds between a necessarily small number of individuals or small groups before entering into a social contract that makes anarchy a viable form of organization. Anarchy doesn't grow wild. Chaos does. Anarchy is carefully planted in neat rows on prepared soil, and lovingly cultivated for as long as possible. Which is probably not very long.

that was easy.

*

[Forgetting2]

Perhaps there's a SIMS game, or some role playing game, which could clear all this up on the particulars. (half kidding)

[vanlose kid]

[semper occultus]

…but if you have no money then you turn to a capitalist. he lends you the money, at cost. money that he made providing the same "service" he's now providing to you. you spend it as above. whatever you make a percentage is marked off for him. and if you fail? same difference. you still owe him the money borrowed plus interest over time. he gets it no matter what. in fact he's made sure the law says he gets it, even if it ruins you. has he invested anything? -- i don't call that an investment.

but...but....from your other posts you must be well aware of the difference between debt & equity & the risks / rewards of either to both the donor & recipient thereof :

equity "investors" will lose their shirts if the business goes tits up

modern capitalism grew on the back of the joint stock company that protected the individual entrepreneur from being pursued to their last penny in that situation

whilst the traditional religous strictures against usury have some moral basis & appeal in a world of over-priviledged senior debt-holders driving entire national economies over the brink to extract their pound of flesh one must also accept that lenders have legitimately to seek return for :
taking on inflation risk - debt is repaid at par in nominal currency ( by & large )
time value of money, deferral of current consumption for the period of the loan, foregone alternative investment opportunities ( opportunity cost ) etc...I'll stop there as my economic knowledge has just run out.

[DrVolin]

Not surprisingly, Islam was essentially a debtors revolt against the tax debt accumulated in the Eastern Empire as a result of Justinian's brief reconquest of the west. The joint stock company is a sound concept, quite compatible with Anarchy, and the obvious alternative to compound interest loans. When you combine compound interest with fractional reserve lending, you have the devil incarnate.

[gnosticheresy_2]

2. now is the existence of a legal system necessary to resolve this? i think not.

No, not "necessary", but, under a common law system, certainly helpful if only to stop the same arguments being thrashed out over and over again in the courts at great expense (both in time and money) to all involved. Surely this principal is a useful one, do we really want to have to go through the arguments as to why murder is a bad thing every time someone is in court accused of killing someone? (yes yes I know not the right example but you know - precedent etc)