Possibilism and Impossibilism

[Joe Hillshoist]

re: pre-invasion australia:

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

Yes, and that was what I was getting at. The state is an entity that exists because we live in populations that are too big for everyone to know everyone else, (among other things of course).

To me the best model for a states behaviour is that its an egregore or even a demon. Bind it tightly and make it serve your will and it could be very useful. Let it run amok and eventually it'll rape you (and everyone/thing you care about) to death. And honestly that seems to be the attitude the faux libertarians that want to wind back state regulation, people like the Koch bros in the US or any number of mining magnates (Reinhart Palmer, Forrest) here in Australia for example, have.

This does come back to the left right divide. The state exists because once upon a time the collective served specific individuals (the king/emperor or queen/empress), and it was a method for imposing power. Several hundred years of effort have gone into making the collective look after the collective - thats what reconising all individuals human rights is about, seperation of powers etc etc.

I don't actually think the state is as bad as I did 6 years ago. These days I think its not a bad thing provided its powers over individuals are limited as much as possible. Cos in some ways the state is as much a collective as the commune down the road. Its a useful way to organise things. But I'm a member of the NSW Rural Fire Service, which is a volunteer bush fighting organisation. Its govt and private funded, but it is part of the executive of government, because we need that power to do what we need to.

We only exist cos the community want us. We operate by hierarchy too. I'm a crew leader, if I go out to a fire as the highest ranked person, or even the agreed leader, then I'm the boss and people have to do what I say. (I have powers pretty similar to a cops actually, including the right to use reasonable force to detain people if I feel its necessary, tho I've never used em, and can't really imagine a situation where I would.) The downside of this is I'm responsible for their safety and the success or failure of what we do. In that order.

Which means you can't do any of the fun stuff. You have to sit back and not get involved. You have to watch everyone all the time to make sure they aren't getting heat sick or dehydrated. You have to maintain situational awareness over a huge area for a bunch of people who are focused on their immediate surroundings. They are relying on you to do it right cos they can't. WHats directly in front of them requires their full attention.

When we finish and take off our uniforms, there is no hierarchy tho. Everyone is equal, and ultimately everyone is friends and neighbours. Or at least knows each other and speaks civilly.


So ultimately I don't think it matters whether the state exists or not. Something will (exist), and how that something mediates power is really what'll determine how good or bad a thing it is to live in.

In some cases the state seems broken, but in some it seems ok... for example the fire brigade thing, or socialised medicine.

[blanc]

Your example (boss of firefighters) is of power and responsibility being indivisible. At the point when power becomes divorced from responsibility for those who invested you with power, administrators of states and institutions become immoral, ie its theft not exchange. The law is supposed to provide a check, but doesn't do this very well. The legal systems most of we English speaking people have, are based on trial by combat. Hence, the bigger one wins.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Your example (boss of firefighters) is of power and responsibility being indivisible.

Yeah, true, but I think thats actually the only reason it works. There is a real and immediate benefit in those situations from ceding some personal sovereignty, but only because of the specific situations where that takes place. Its not a permanent situation, its short term for a specific situation.

The law is supposed to provide a check, but doesn't do this very well. The legal systems most of we English speaking people have, are based on trial by combat. Hence, the bigger one wins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef#Arrest

Not in the above case.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/habib-to-su ... 19j93.html

Possibly not in that one either.

At the point when power becomes divorced from responsibility for those who invested you with power, administrators of states and institutions become immoral, ie its theft not exchange.

I agree. I guess what I'm talking about is finding the space just before we reach that point, or even ways to prevent that point. I think in the cases above (Haneef and Habib) that point was passed, and although thats not good, the back ups built into the system did work. If not Habib wouldn't have had a massive payout from the Australian govt and Haneef would never have got a fair hearing.

I'm not saying thats perfect, cos its far from it, but it is an improvement on what it could have been.

[ultramegagenius]

both sides of every war are guaranteed to lose. there is nothing to overthrow; there is naught but to extricate oneself from the system. the systemic growth of money/commodities is sure to expand infinitely as humanity declines. a pro-growth model based on life-value rather than artificial exploitation will necessitate local currencies as well as harmonization with nature taking precedence over monetary growth. obviously this is completely anarchistic and demolishes currency issues head on.

all who supplant money's symbolic value for actual value are doomed to suffer greatly. furthermore, the creation of real value involves more than just making technology to sell over an anonymous market. it means producing food and real local relationships with technology as an afterthought. the social healing/growth process requires compassion as a means to our evolution. as long as money, the symbol of value, is confused for real life-value, confused tyrannies will reign.

our cells do not care about us. we tend not to care about society. the molecules dont care about any of it. and so on... Riding these multi-dimensional aggregates of consciousness toward a model of basic independence coupled with higher order curiosity is our accursed fate. when curiosity overcomes fear, we arrive at Permaculture supporting Anarchy, supporting Yoga and meditation. the present system will eat itself; fighting to change the relationships of production on the industrial level will never amount to anything insofar as we cannot feed our bodies and souls first. the objective truth is that most of modern society has doomed itself and that if we do in fact enjoy this experiment in consciousness embodied in the paradox of life/death, we must support the latter through completely natural, organic self-reliance. all countering social constructions will deconstruct whether you like it or not.

[semper occultus]

Mechanical and organic solidarity refers to the concepts of solidarity as developed by Émile Durkheim. They are used in the context of differentiating between mechanical and organic societies.

According to Durkheim, the types of social solidarity correlate with types of society.
Durkheim introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of the development of societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893).
In a society exhibiting mechanical solidarity, its cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individuals—people feel connected through similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle.
Mechanical solidarity normally operates in "traditional" and small scale societies. In simpler societies (e.g., tribal), solidarity is usually based on kinship ties of familial networks.
Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from specialization of work and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in "modern" and "industrial" societies.
Definition: it is social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals have on each other in more advanced societies. Although individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of the component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).

The two types of solidarity can be distinguished by morphological and demographic features, type of norms in existence, and the intensity and content of the conscience collective.

en.wikipedia.org

sure he got the names the wrong way round but I suppose he knows what he was on about....

[Nordic]

well vl kid, that's all fine and dandy, and i can't disagree with you as far as you go, but you don't go far enough.

because if you tear down the pyramid, they will jusyt build it again. and they'll build it in such a way that you'll have a far smaller chance of ever tearing it down again

indeed that is what we are witnessing right now. after populist-based movements from the last 100 yearss or so, post-monarchy, post-colonial, post communist, we're now entering a post-democracy, post-unions, post civil-rights era with a survaillance capability that any monarch of old could never have dreamed of.

so let me rephrase the question --

if you tear down the pyramid, what actions do you take to ensure that they don't simply rebuild it?

because they will. if there's any way they can.

[MacCruiskeen]

A couple of questions I'd love to see in a national (or - even better - global!) referendum:

1. Should there be a cap on income? If so: what should be the maximum legal income for any individual?

2. Should there be a minimum income? If so: what should be the minimum legal income for any individual?

3. Should it be illegal to own property you neither live in nor work in?

My answers:

1. Yes. Obviously. (Say: $60,000)

2. Yes. Obviously. (Say: $60,000)

3. Yes. Obviously.

[vanlose kid]

well vl kid, that's all fine and dandy, and i can't disagree with you as far as you go, but you don't go far enough.

because if you tear down the pyramid, they will jusyt build it again. and they'll build it in such a way that you'll have a far smaller chance of ever tearing it down again

indeed that is what we are witnessing right now. after populist-based movements from the last 100 yearss or so, post-monarchy, post-colonial, post communist, we're now entering a post-democracy, post-unions, post civil-rights era with a survaillance capability that any monarch of old could never have dreamed of.

so let me rephrase the question --

if you tear down the pyramid, what actions do you take to ensure that they don't simply rebuild it?

because they will. if there's any way they can.

once we've torn down the pyramid, and i mean we. there has to be a common consensus/agreement/law re the matter then most of the structure is already in place. what is required is a change in thinking or world view. a change in the way we do things. a change in culture. that of course translates into a way we raise our children for instance, into a common ethos. and then there's knowledge/education and vigilance.

law should be simple guidelines known to everyone. laws that everyone can understand. law as a way of life. not a legal system divorced from and incomprehensible except to a few. part of that law would forbid usury/fractional reserve banking. that alone would prevent a great deal of injustice.

as for the rest we'd have to work it out wouldn't we? everyone has a say. direct democracy. no representative, no government other than self government. locally. community by community. case by case according to law and analogy, e.g. is this new practice like usury or not? if it is, it's illegal.

food for thought, start here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30919

*

[DrVolin]

as for the rest we'd have to work it out wouldn't we?

That's exactly what I am afraid of.

[vanlose kid]

as for the rest we'd have to work it out wouldn't we?

That's exactly what I am afraid of.

i realize that. we view human beings differently. you seem to tend towards the "inherently evil" view, yourself excepted of course. a recipe for authoritarianism.

*

[Nordic]

as for the rest we'd have to work it out wouldn't we?

That's exactly what I am afraid of.

i realize that. we view human beings differently. you seem to tend towards the "inherently evil" view, yourself excepted of course. a recipe for authoritarianism.

*

Well, speaking for myself, I don't see people as "inherently evil" or "inherently good". There are, however, inherently evil people in any large enough population. And it's those people who tend to make the pyramid you're speaking of. Most people are "good" for the most part, if not weak and ignorant, and the evil ones build these pyramids while managing to convince most people that it's a good thing.

I have friends who have started pretty successful businesses, businesses that have no evil impact at all, based on having a relationship with a bank that loaned them money to get started. They had to have collateral, of course, which is always the catch-22, isn't it? You have to have property to put up against the loan, so you have to be a property owner of some kind in order to use that system.

I agree that we have to change the culture, change the way people think, etc. etc. At the same time, we're currently undergoing the transition into a complete surveillance/police state which is going to be nearly impossible to dismantle or successfully fight.

[vanlose kid]

*

true, but the question for me is whether fighting it by attempting to vote in a reformer who promises hope and change is meaningful.

as for your friends, i have nothing against them starting businesses or whatever. what i do have a problem with is that the bank is making money off them by providing a "service" that is nothing but said bank lending them "money" that the banks don't have, "money" created out of thin air merely by entering the digits into their electronic ledger and charging for it. what your friends have to pay them for that service does not come out of thin air.

that is to say i don't think your friends are evil, nor do i think the bank teller is. but the lawmakers and corporate owners etc., who know how the system functions and support it are committing acts i do deem evil, but have been made legal.

*

[vanlose kid]

*

OT.

i want to elaborate a bit on my next to last post to Nordic re crime and punishment.

one of the things i think need to be abolished along with the capitalist system and states is prisons and imprisonment [and the idea of it] as a "humane" form of punishment.

it's supposedly a step up from an eye for an eye, but i find it more like 100+ eyes for an eye. the "eye for an eye" phrase is an analogy re weighing up of crime and punishment, all it means is that they have to be proportionate.

when you say punish a child for acts that you for whatever reason deem wrong -- say spending too much time at the computer playing WoW such that it affects his school work for instance -- what i consider a just punishment would consist in depriving him of the opportunity to play WoW. that is punishment enough. i.e. he can still go to school, eat at the table, go on his paper run, hang with his buddies etc.

locking him into a room with three square meals, a half to one hour of sun and air in an enclosed space for any amount of time is not just, is not an eye for an eye, not proportionate. it is excessive to the extreme no matter how i look at it. it's a perversion of justice. making money off of imprisonment, i.e. turning the prison complex into a corporate money making regime is an even greater perversion of justice.

that relates to the post mentioned above regarding someone found practicing usury for instance. strip him of his profits and forbid him the practice. end of.

but what about something like manslaughter or murder? shouldn't the guy be put into prison for x amount of time? i don't think so. not for any amount of time.

in the "dark" middle ages, i've read somewhere, a murderer could be enjoined upon to wear a certain garment that marked him out as such and told to walk the roads. that's pretty harsh but compared to what else that could be done to him including a stay at Parchman Farm i find that much more civilized.

the way i see it, most murders happen in a flash of frenzy and living with it for most human beings is punishment enough. so what type of sanctions or punishment if you prefer that would be just? if the man or woman has a family and a means of income i'd say letting him go on doing that and providing some sort of compensation to the aggrieved parties should suffice, say a certain amount of his income for x number of years or until he met a preset amount agreed upon that was e.g. set a side for the victim's children, or having to do that work for the community, would do. the murderer no matter what is someone from one's community. a neighbor or friend or family member: a father or son or mother or daughter, wife or husband. the term "murderer" is not all that they are.

no imprisonment, no ostracization, no record that follows you for the rest of your life and bars you from certain jobs or neighborhoods or whatever. none of that. and no stockholder or politician etc., making money or office or carrier off your humane imprisonment, rehabilitation, and else all that goes with it.

just a thought, emphasis on thought

*

on edit: imprisonment might be humane, it sure ain't human.

*

[Nordic]

I think there are many people who deserve to be locked up for a long long time.

Just about everyone in the Bush administration, for starters.

I'd be fine with them being put to death, too.

[Joe Hillshoist]

There is an aspect of "the law" ie criminal punishment, thats about vengeance and using the criminal as a scapegoat for everything thats wrong in someones life. (This is cos of the thing where people surrender their right to violence to the state, to live in a society mediated the state which has a monopoly on violence. So everyone they want to punch, or bash to death with an ashtray or whatever, everyone they'd like to commit violence on, gets off scott free. Criminals are a state mediated substitute.)

I think some people see it as the deal that cos they surrender their right to violence to the state, when someone breaks the state's rules then they deserve the violence that would have been inflicted on everyone who pissed off someone else in a free for all situation. Thats the opposite of the principle of rule of law and proportionate just punishment based on rehabilitating criminals - the principle that is sposed to inform our modern, esp common law based, legal systems.

Ie some people want to see the law punish criminals harshly, cos Goddam it!! God is Vengeful and wrathful and don't you forget it!!! Cos like that Rex Banner, if we could pick and choose what laws we obey then I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock eyed.