Quote from: srqrebel on March 08, 2008, 11:13 AM NHFT
As far as the background for my way of thinking, it more or less started with various writings of Dr. Frank R. Wallace, especially The Neo-Tech Discovery (later revised and renamed The Zonpower Discovery), as well as my all-time personal favorite, Sic Itur Ad Astra by Andrew J. Galambos. Unfortunately, all of these are now out of print and extremely difficult to obtain.
These form the general foundation of my thinking; yet it took literally over a decade of incubation for all of their powerful identifications to start to 'jell' to a point where I could clearly internalize the accurate paradigm of what the Authoritarian Model of Government really is, and what it really represents, and why it makes perfect sense to categorically withdraw from this highly obsolete, literally criminal model of "governing".
Another author I would highly recommend is Carl Watner, founder of the concept of voluntaryism.
Thank you, I'll check these out. :read: When do you intend to unveil your master plan? :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Friday on March 09, 2008, 06:20 PM NHFT
When do you intend to unveil your master plan? :icon_pirat:
LOL... it's still being formulated :P
...or should I say, being fine tuned. Here is a rough outline of my approach:
The basic, long-term goal is to replace the individual-enslaving Authoritarian Model of Government (AMOG) with the individual-empowering Free Market Model.
It is basically a three-pronged strategy:
1) Withdrawing all support, financial and moral, from the AMOG, to the best of my ability. This fulfills my personal obligation.
2) Building the replacement to the AMOG: The Free Market structure of voluntary services. The idea is to outcompete the AMOG, to create the conditions that compel it to retreat into oblivion. Focus energy and resources in a forward direction: Creating the new>> rather than <<destroying the old; outcompeting>> rather than <<fighting. This requires careful forethought, taking steps to camouflage and otherwise protect these enterprises from attack by the AMOG.
3) Spread the accurate paradigm, that of the genuine, 100% voluntary, contract-based Free Market system, to our target market, using all available media at my (our) disposal. This target market includes entrepreneurial creators, freethinkers, movers and shakers, and the generally disaffected who thirst for a real solution to the world's problems. Bring the creators and entrepreneurs on board to help build the structure of the Free Market that will outcompete the obsolete AMOG. Bring the disaffected on board to redirect their personal support from the AMOG to the Free Market Model.
I seek to relay these ideas through dramatic assertion of individual sovereignty, i.e. civil disobedience combined with a well-articulated explanation (message). This message is most effective against a backdrop of accelerating tyranny. These two facts, along with the need to cut off all support, aid, and comfort (sense of legitimacy) from the parasitic AMOG, forms a solid case for 100% withdrawal from the AMOG, including all political participation and appeals, as much as possible.
I am down to working out the nuts and bolts applications of this approach. Stay tuned! :)
Some random thoughts:
#1 is hard to do because the current model of government is quite content for most of us to be wage slaves, beholden to an employer. This makes it difficult, because most people are afraid of getting arrested for even minor infractions because they will lose their job if they don't show up for a couple days to work. I think that looking at ways to make it easier to do #1 is productive, to help people towards financial independence, or at least interdependence among those of us who are trying to do it. by financial independence, I don't mean wealthy, just that there is some way to make work more flexible. Dave's anarchy house project idea is a good step in that direction, because it makes a short stint of unemployment more palatable. but I think more could be done.
I don't have much to say on #2
#3, I think we should not overlook the influence of the arts in communicating our message. I like what Dale is doing. I like what John Connell is doing. Music and the arts have a way of reaching people at an entirely different level than dry, boring books do. I like the street theater sort of things.
I also think that it is helpful to tap into already existing networks. It helps to be entertaining. It helps to think positive about how people might respond to what you say, even if they seem like a lost cause.
I am starting to order anarchist t-shirts, and I am going to wear them around, because t-shirts are effective conversation starters. I can't tell you how many times I have been able to have a conversation because of my t-shirts.
It helps to stand out in a crowd. I am thinking of radically changing what I wear. I like the Free Hugs! campaign. Anything to stick out in the crowd so that people remember you and what you say. I think the overalls are a nice thing to wear, because that pretty much removes any intimidation factor and conveys this very comfortable, non-threatening vibe that I think is helpful to convey when you are preaching anarchy. It also helps to be known for being more than just a guy who doesn't like government.
You could do the free hugs and sing songs .... in the ron paul rally in DC
Very good insights, Caleb... and +1 for pointing out the value of reaching people through the arts. I, too, see the arts as a largely overlooked, underutilized but very powerful communication tool. For instance, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, in spite of all of it's non sequiturs and politically charged, shoddy "reporting" and obvious bs, still managed to instantly transform me from a tacit supporter of GWB to an overt opponent. (Obviously, I've come a long way further since then!)
The reason I do not personally focus much on the arts, is because I have virtually no artistic ability of my own that I am aware of, unless you consider writing an art.
---
Indeed, looking for ways to make it easier to do #1 is not only productive, it is an absolutely critical, though relatively minor, component of the strategy.
First, you create a rough outline, identifying the most direct and effective routes to achieving the goal of a free civilization. This I have done, as illustrated in my previous post. Then you start honing these approaches all the way down to the nuts and bolts applications, creating solutions to each obstacle you encounter along the way. That is what I am in the process of doing now, and one of those obstacles is the AMOG's near stranglehold on employment, through their act of compelling virtually all employers to be their tax collectors, else ultimately look down the barrel of a gun.
It is instructive to note that, for those who have made the paradigm shift, and fully grasp the true nature of our social environment -- the 100% parasitic, individual-enslaving AMOG vs. the 100% productive, individual-empowering Free Market Civilization -- it is a small matter indeed to stand firm in the face of the gun. But while the threat of their gun is virtually a laughing matter to me, and anyone else who has made this paradigm shift, one area where they have real power over me, and others like me, is wherever they maintain control over the provision of genuine services.
Let me illustrate:
If I were self-employed, the only tool they have at their disposal to try and extract their taxes from me is the gun. It is to my benefit, not theirs, if they choose to use this tool -- for I am fully prepared to reverse it right back at them in a well-orchestrated jujitsu move, by broadcasting far and wide the repulsive spectacle of the AMOG's evil core to those who blindly and unwittingly support it.
However, I am not currently in a position to be self-employed; that is one of the obstacles I must create a solution to (and I will). In the meantime, in order to maintain my effectiveness, I have to have an income source. In fact, I cannot very well create the solution of self-employment without at least a nominal amount of startup capital. So it follows that I have a very real need for the service of employment. I have presently no real opportunity for obtaining a decent income, which is necessary for my effectiveness, through under-the-table employment. So, I am temporarily backed into a corner and must turn to conventional employment for a decent income.
That is where the AMOG has some fleeting power over me: By compelling my conventional employer to withhold taxes from my earnings, as a condition of being provided the very real and needed service of employment, I am temporarily powerless to keep 100% of my earnings out of the hands of the AMOG. I do take steps to reduce to a bare minimum the amount of plunder they take from my earnings, however, because that is in my power to do.
Same goes for roads: The AMOG's driver licensing and vehicle registrations "services" are not services at all; or at least they are not services that I have any use for. Thus, their only tool to get me to pay for those non-services is the gun. Again, their guns have no power over me: I am prepared to reverse the impact tenfold to them when, and if, they attack me.
The roads themselves are a different story, however: If I want to be effective, I have to be mobile -- and efficiently so. I need the very real service of being provided roads to travel on. Since the AMOG presently maintains control over the provision of virtually all road service, they have me backed into a corner: I am compelled to turn to a service that is provided by the very institution that I detest with every fiber of my being. This, too, is ultimately a temporary condition, for as the AMOG is itself compelled to retreat, roads will either become privatized or made obsolete by new transportation technology provided by the private sector.
This, by the way, provides an important glimpse into what makes the Free Market Model able to both outcompete the AMOG, and once in place, be virtually indestructible: Nothing under the Free Market structure is ever imposed at the point of a gun. Enforcement, strictly a method of the obsolete and criminal AMOG, is replaced by crime prevention technologies. The worst that can happen to a perceived criminal in the coming Free Market Civilization is that he will be very effectively denied valuable services by conventional service providers. His threats of force will be just as laughable as the recent episode of a would-be bank robber who tried to rob a bank through the drive-thru, and kept trying to frighten the teller into compliance by brandishing his gun even after he was decisively informed that the window is constructed of bulletproof glass. Members of the ostracized criminal class will be left with only two options for survival: Turn on each other, which leads to the rapid decimation of their numbers, or lay down their weapons and produce values to be traded peaceably amongst themselves in their own little black market (which, by the way, they will be perfectly left alone to do so).
Value denial is a vastly more powerful form of regulation than the impotent gun and fists employed by the AMOG, and since the AMOG relies on the gun rather than value production, they are at a severe and permanent disadvantage.
While others are fiddling with the controls of the very mechanism of enslavement to try to achieve freedom, I am designing the mechanism that will back the AMOG into a corner until their final act is to be literally laughed out of existence.*
*I first read the phrase, "laughed out of existence", in reference to our current guns-and-fists model of government, back in the eighties. It was a favorite phrase of the Neo-Tech author, Dr. Frank R. Wallace. It took me twenty years to come to the realization that that phrase was meant quite literally, and is very well within our reach -- in fact, inevitable, if the AMOG does not succeed in wiping out existing civilization first with its toys of mass destruction.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 10, 2008, 11:16 AM NHFT
The reason I do not personally focus much on the arts, is because I have virtually no artistic ability of my own that I am aware of, unless you consider writing an art.
Writing is absolutely an art! Look at people like Mark Twain ... or Emily Dickinson ... Edgar Allen Poe. Hell, I challenge anyone to read the Tell-tale Heart and not walk away with a chill down their spine. Art is what reaches people at an emotional level. Photography is also an overlooked art. Menno, I bet that you have tons of art within you. Like anything, it requires some technical skill. I used to say that myself, "I wish I could do art", but it requires a little effort to learn the technical aspect, but once you take that effort, you let your creativity take over. Words are a good place to begin, of course, because the only technical skill you need is one most people already have: the ability to read and write.
QuoteIndeed, looking for ways to make it easier to do #1 is not only productive, it is an absolutely critical, though relatively minor, component of the strategy.
Critical, though minor. ;D Can I use that one? 8)
Quote
First, you create a rough outline, identifying the most direct and effective routes to achieving the goal of a free civilization. This I have done, as illustrated in my previous post. Then you start honing these approaches all the way down to the nuts and bolts applications, creating solutions to each obstacle you encounter along the way. That is what I am in the process of doing now, and one of those obstacles is the AMOG's near stranglehold on employment, through their act of compelling virtually all employers to be their tax collectors, else ultimately look down the barrel of a gun.
I don't have the solution, but maybe a variation of Russell's "V for Voluntary Services" would be a good way of working? If you had enough people participating, you could devote one guy whose job was to hussle up work, and the rest of the guys were the crew who did it.
Quote
Same goes for roads: The AMOG's driver licensing and vehicle registrations "services" are not services at all; or at least they are not services that I have any use for. Thus, their only tool to get me to pay for those non-services is the gun. Again, their guns have no power over me: I am prepared to reverse the impact tenfold to them when, and if, they attack me.
The reason that I didn't comment on that aspect earlier, is because I don't see any way to replace roads and such at this time. Several other components other people are working on, so I don't know that you have to central plan that. The question is: What can I do right now to work towards an AMOG-free society? But you also have to realize that there are other people who are also trying to do that, so you don't have to solve every problem.
There's another thing I think you might think about, to go along with your idea of ostracism as a societal tool for discouraging anti-social or criminal behavior: This is far more powerful than you think. Everyone requires some level of social approval. The reason most people are able to commit crimes is because they belong to a societal group that on some level approves of the behavior. The easiest example would be a gang, although I think we do ourselves a disservice to limit our thinking of how this works to only gangs, because even a small group of a couple kids can smash mailboxes because it's "cool" in their tiny little group to do it. I think mentoring kids, like maybe a Big Brother type program, is a highly beneficial thing to do, because it uses positive social pressure as a reward instead of a punishment, working while kids are still young to reinforce the idea that helping other people, not hurting them, is "cool".
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
Critical, though minor. ;D Can I use that one? 8)
I see why it sounds like an oxymoron, but it is not. For example, lug nuts are a minor component of an automobile, but extremely critical to its functioning. The engine, on the other hand, is a major component -- and critical as well. The bug shield is neither major nor critical.
Make sense? And of course you can use it ;D
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
...maybe a variation of Russell's "V for Voluntary Services" would be a good way of working? If you had enough people participating, you could devote one guy whose job was to hussle up work, and the rest of the guys were the crew who did it.
I had never heard of "V for Voluntary Services", but it sounds like an interesting approach worth looking into.
Although I am also looking for solutions that can be duplicated by individuals who do not have the advantage of an instant network, like we have.
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
...Several other components other people are working on, so I don't know that you have to central plan that. The question is: What can I do right now to work towards an AMOG-free society? But you also have to realize that there are other people who are also trying to do that, so you don't have to solve every problem.
Exactly! Gee, I didn't mean to imply that I will do all or most of the work. Others will no doubt work circles around me in terms of both fine-tuning the design (creating solutions to the obstacles), and implementing various components.
All I am trying to do, is
as much as is within my limited power to design and implement the structure of the Free Market Civilization, while virally spreading this concept so others can get on board and do the same until we reach critical mass.
No part of this structure is, or can be centrally planned. A key feature of the Free Market Civilization is accelerated decentralization -- for that empowers the individual.
My guess is that at some point in the distant future of human civilization, human beings will operate as 100% self-sufficient entities, as the ultimate result of the direction that the Free Market will inexorably take us. The AMOG, on the other hand, specializes in keeping us trapped in a mode of dependence on a centralized system.
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
There's another thing I think you might think about, to go along with your idea of ostracism as a societal tool for discouraging anti-social or criminal behavior: This is far more powerful than you think. Everyone requires some level of social approval. The reason most people are able to commit crimes is because they belong to a societal group that on some level approves of the behavior.
Absolutely! There are many different aspects that enhance this strategy and Free Market Civilization itself. I do not have the time or space, or even the presence of mind to list them all in one fell swoop. This is one of them.
Think of what happens when a young person is faced with the choice of either trying to extract values criminally, vs. honorable productive value exchange, once the Free Market is fully established and well under way: By now, the remnant of criminals who have survived their initial self-inflicted decimation, will have no doubt established a black market system of value production and peaceable trade amongst themselves, even to the point of managing to carve out a comfortable existence for themselves.
So the young person going out on his own would inevitably be aware that if he attempts to advance himself through crime, there is a very strong likelihood that he will get caught in the ostracism matrix and decisively banished from interacting with the general marketplace. Yet he knows that he could still maintain a fairly comfortable existence in the black market.
One thing that would serve as an additional powerful deterrent to this potentially rash and thoughtless youth, is the specter of being just as decisively ostracized from those who love him and exchange emotional values with him. This will occur at the subconscious level, with little or no conscious logic involved.
For example, consider the extreme (and completely irrational) aversion that the average twenty-something person today has to the idea of dating someone with, say, an age difference of more than three or four years. This has absolutely no basis in logic, or threat of force (there is no law prohibiting age differences between adults): It is perpetuated by the very real threat of social alienation and derision by their peers. Even if a young person could be genuinely attracted to a person six years older or younger than themselves, the specter of being virtually ostracized by their peers prevents most of them from even recognizing such an attraction within themselves.
You bet social norms are very powerful, and play a very important part in keeping the coming Free Market Civilization functioning smoothly once established.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 10, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
For example, consider the extreme (and completely irrational) aversion that the average twenty-something person today has to the idea of dating someone with, say, an age difference of more than three or four years. This has absolutely no basis in logic, or threat of force (there is no law prohibiting age differences between adults): It is perpetuated by the very real threat of social alienation and derision by their peers. Even if a young person could be genuinely attracted to a person six years older or younger than themselves, the specter of being virtually ostracized by their peers prevents most of them from even recognizing such an attraction within themselves.
Is this really completely irrational? If you date with the ultimate goal of forming a life-long pair-bond... there are clear disadvantages to forming such a bond with a person with a significantly shorter lifespan.
QuoteYou bet social norms are very powerful, and play a very important part in keeping the coming Free Market Civilization functioning smoothly once established.
Then let's change the normative behavior. We may scoff at suburban pointlessness and its oppressive mediocrity. However, relating to others on a mundane level helps them recognize your humanity. It is important for others to see themselves reflected in you when you demonstrate. A good working example is Harry Hay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay) who founded the Mattachine Society and the Radical Fairies. Despite their radical politics, they would disguise themselves as normal people and descend en masse on small towns.
For those who have rejected violence, militance cannot win the day by itself. The militant core is important for making issues topical. People at demonstrations may be quickly dismissed as freaks. Casual political conversation with a peer is not so easily dismissed. Strong ties to neighbors, church groups, and charities help show yourself as stable/invested/sane.
The challenge is to find peers outside libertarian circles. Then, not become subsumed by the mainstream.
Oh, and You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship (http://libcom.org/library/YouCantBlowUpASocialRelationship7) is good reading.
Women would marry much younger men, if a life-long pair bonding was the only goal... simply because they live longer in general. The socio-economic underpinnings of 'nesting' comes into play offseting this rational.
I agree with you Picaro dude
Quote from: srqrebel on March 10, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
...maybe a variation of Russell's "V for Voluntary Services" would be a good way of working? If you had enough people participating, you could devote one guy whose job was to hussle up work, and the rest of the guys were the crew who did it.
I had never heard of "V for Voluntary Services", but it sounds like an interesting approach worth looking into.
I doubt you would like it. Your stuff is different.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2008, 05:28 PM NHFT
I agree with you Picaro dude
:o Yet you mocked me when I said that I needed to hang out with people who weren't part of the clique. ;)
M'kay?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2008, 05:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on March 10, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 10, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
...maybe a variation of Russell's "V for Voluntary Services" would be a good way of working? If you had enough people participating, you could devote one guy whose job was to hussle up work, and the rest of the guys were the crew who did it.
I had never heard of "V for Voluntary Services", but it sounds like an interesting approach worth looking into.
I doubt you would like it. Your stuff is different.
What's not to like?
http://www.v4voluntary.org/
Quote from: Caleb on March 11, 2008, 01:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2008, 05:28 PM NHFT
I agree with you Picaro dude
:o Yet you mocked me when I said that I needed to hang out with people who weren't part of the clique. ;)
M'kay?
So I guess you should move to NH and hang out with Picaro.
I just find it amusing that you think you will find more comrads elsewhere. They are moving here. :)
Quote from: Caleb on March 11, 2008, 01:40 AM NHFT
What's not to like?
http://www.v4voluntary.org/
menno likes contracts
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2008, 06:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 11, 2008, 01:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2008, 05:28 PM NHFT
I agree with you Picaro dude
:o Yet you mocked me when I said that I needed to hang out with people who weren't part of the clique. ;)
M'kay?
So I guess you should move to NH and hang out with Picaro.
I just find it amusing that you think you will find more comrads elsewhere. They are moving here. :)
;D Maybe, but between Wes and I there's the beginnings of a small exodus to southern california. :)
I was just referring to the fact that you said that you agreed with picaro when he said that we need to form relationships with people outside of our beliefs. Because you've mocked me every time I said that. You'd cackle when I talked about authentic communities and such. I know it was good natured, but I guess always took it as a little friendly jab, meaning that you didn't think I was right. But now you say you agree, so I guess I was surprised is all.
Maybe you can be the apostle to the libertarians and gun cleaners, and I'll be the apostle to the socialists and homeless people. As apostle to the socialists, I glorify my ministry! ;D
Quote from: Caleb on March 11, 2008, 09:31 PM NHFT
;D Maybe, but between Wes and I there's the beginnings of a small exodus to southern california. :)
I was just referring to the fact that you said that you agreed with picaro when he said that we need to form relationships with people outside of our beliefs. Because you've mocked me every time I said that. You'd cackle when I talked about authentic communities and such. I know it was good natured, but I guess always took it as a little friendly jab, meaning that you didn't think I was right. But now you say you agree, so I guess I was surprised is all.
Maybe you can be the apostle to the libertarians and gun cleaners, and I'll be the apostle to the socialists and homeless people. As apostle to the socialists, I glorify my ministry! ;D
I agree with you Caleb. ;D
I heard from a reliable source that San Diego is Objectivist heaven, so maybe you should join them. ;)
I question your apostleship credencials.
How did you like "What is to be Done", by Tolstoy?
Quote from: picaro on March 10, 2008, 03:25 PM NHFT
Is this really completely irrational? If you date with the ultimate goal of forming a life-long pair-bond... there are clear disadvantages to forming such a bond with a person with a significantly shorter lifespan.
Perhaps, though I would much rather enjoy decades of a mutually satisfying relationship, even if I outlive my "soul-mate" by many years, than to reject such a relationship in the hopes of finding the same, only within some arbitrary age limit.
Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing. That is not at all an
age objection, though, if you think about it. It is just that we tend to mentally associate certain things with age that simply do not apply universally.
Quote from: picaro on March 10, 2008, 03:25 PM NHFT
QuoteYou bet social norms are very powerful, and play a very important part in keeping the coming Free Market Civilization functioning smoothly once established.
Then let's change the normative behavior. We may scoff at suburban pointlessness and its oppressive mediocrity. However, relating to others on a mundane level helps them recognize your humanity. It is important for others to see themselves reflected in you when you demonstrate. A good working example is Harry Hay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay) who founded the Mattachine Society and the Radical Fairies. Despite their radical politics, they would disguise themselves as normal people and descend en masse on small towns.
For those who have rejected violence, militance cannot win the day by itself. The militant core is important for making issues topical. People at demonstrations may be quickly dismissed as freaks. Casual political conversation with a peer is not so easily dismissed. Strong ties to neighbors, church groups, and charities help show yourself as stable/invested/sane.
The challenge is to find peers outside libertarian circles. Then, not become subsumed by the mainstream.
Oh, and You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship (http://libcom.org/library/YouCantBlowUpASocialRelationship7) is good reading.
I agree wholeheartedly, and
thank you for pointing this out. This is another one of those aspects that enhance this strategy. This one, though, is
so important that it cannot be stressed enough.
Since the faulty AMOG-oriented paradigm is such a tenacious one, it is exceedingly difficult to get the accurate, Free Market/Voluntaryist paradigm across to our audience, even those who are fairly aware that something is dreadfully wrong with the world we live in. Since we are so prone to being misunderstood, and it is easier for the average sheeple to rationalize us away as nutcases, rather than seriously consider the possibility that their own basic worldview could be fundamentally flawed, it is vitally important we carefully monitor our conduct at all times to maintain the closest, value-oriented ties possible with those around us. A very real part of my strategy is how I conduct myself toward my coworkers, who are my most accessible audience: I not only make sure that I always conduct myself with the utmost integrity and honor toward them, I make a conscious effort to treat them respectfully, help them out whenever I can, smile and brighten their day wherever possible, listen to them and generally show that I care about them (
for I do -- after all, they are my fellow human beings).
The result of this consistent effort to bond with those who have no clue about the paradigm shift I have made, is that when my efforts culminate in a high-profile arrest for some victimless "crime", many of those coworkers will be faced with an unshakable dilemma: Pass me off as a nutcase, or give some real serious thought to my newly-revealed message. If they happen to hear a coworker thoughtlessly deriding me for getting arrested, they will feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who has demonstrated genuine friendship toward themselves. This will further compel them to try to make sense of this strange message that is being presented by someone they know to be an intelligent, honorable, and well-liked individual. Their past interactions with me will not permit those individuals to pass me off as a nutcase.
The fact that my efforts have led to me being a very well-liked employee, also increases the odds that management will be open to giving me "second chance", in the event that I am unexpectedly arrested and miss work without advance notice.
I have not read, "You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship", but I will add it to my long and growing reading list. I must say, though --
I heartily agree with its title.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2008, 06:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 11, 2008, 01:40 AM NHFT
What's not to like?
http://www.v4voluntary.org/
menno likes contracts
I certainly cannot object to others doing this! ;D
Just an observation: What is described on that website is very much an offer of contract, regardless of what else you wish to call it. A contract is simply a voluntary agreement between individuals. This constitutes an offer to provide services at a price to be entirely determined by the customer after the services have been rendered. If someone accepts this offer, that constitutes a contract.
I would personally never place my property at the mercy of another by offering my resources (time, energy, materials, tools, etc.) without ensuring that I have tied my own just compensation to the reputation of my customer. The prospect of losing repeat sales and referrals, and damage to my own reputation, is enough for me to ensure that the customer leaves happy. I need my compensation to be spelled out and agreed to in advance, to ensure that it is likewise tied to their reputation.
Just curious -- would you likewise give me a specific dollar amount up front, say $50, to come do services for you, but leave it up to me to decide how much work I will do for you after you have paid me the $50?
Same difference.
exactly ;)
Quote from: srqrebel on March 12, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing.
There seem to be some unspoken assumptions here that perhaps you ought to examine. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 12, 2008, 12:04 PM NHFT
I agree with you Caleb. ;D
I heard from a reliable source that San Diego is Objectivist heaven, so maybe you should join them. ;)
I question your apostleship credencials.
How did you like "What is to be Done", by Tolstoy?
Ouch! Well, I'm no Super-Apostle, like thyself. ;) ;D Maybe that's why I'm stuck out here in this horrible 70 degree weather talking to homeless people, and you get all the fun of hanging out with the gun cleaners there in your winter wonderland. ;D
I hadn't read that one, actually. I was really enjoying "Letter to a Hindoo" which is now my favorite thing to recommend people from Tolstoy because it can be read in one setting, so they don't get a chance to say "well, it's very long and I have a lot of other things to read." I did read What is to be Done just now, and it was interesting, because he was dealing with the same things we deal with now: the people who wanted to either fight a violent revolution or else work incrementally within the system to change things, and he pretty much put both ideas to rest really easily, and then went back to his core idea of just living your life according to your own morals and not backing down.
I like this particular comment, toward the end, because I think it sums up my beliefs that I have been thinking even before I even heard of Tolstoy (at least, heard of him as a Christian anarchist):
QuoteTherefore the gist of what I wished to say to you is this: That it is unprofitable for good, sincere people to spend their powers of mind and soul on gaining small practical ends--for instance, in the various struggles of nationalities, or parties or in Liberal wire-pulling--while they have not reached a clear and firm religious perception; that is, a consciousness of the meaning and purpose of life. I think that all the era of soul and mind of good men, who wish to be of service to humanity, should be directed to that end. When that is accomplished all else will also be accomplished.
"What is to be done" ... is about his attempts at helping the poor through charity .... very good
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 12, 2008, 02:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on March 12, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing.
There seem to be some unspoken assumptions here that perhaps you ought to examine. :)
Such as?
I am aware that with modern technology, it is possible for women much older than fifty to bear children, but it is not yet widely available. I am quite certain that I would like to raise a family, just not yet. I have no interest whatsoever in adopting.
The woman I referred to may have had other quite undesirable qualities that would have emerged had I gotten to know her better. The same is true of anyone my own age, so it is not necessarily a factor of age.
She could have been lying about her age, but she has (what she claims as her own) grown children, and it would seem really strange for a woman to claim to be older than she really is.
At any rate, the
bottom line is there are certain qualities that must be present, and others that must be absent, for me to desire a relationship with a specific individual. If the right qualities are present, and the undesirable ones absent, it would make no difference to me if that person has literally been alive for 200 years.
Thus age is literally just a number -- and to dismiss someone as a potential mate based on an arbitrary number, rather than actual qualities, is not only irrational but amounts to stereotyping, which places an individual at an unfair disadvantage.
That is certainly not an assumption. It is fact.
Adopt?
Quote from: dalebert on March 13, 2008, 12:37 PM NHFT
Adopt?
Since J'raxis did not leave me a clue as to what potential unspoken assumptions he was referring to with regard to the paragraph he quoted, I covered all the possibilities I could think of.
One of those is the potential unspoken assumption that having a mate who is unable to conceive, would prevent me from having children.
menno's manifesto is getting longer
longer? I think he's just getting sidetracked by all the elderly women he finds hot. ;D
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 12, 2008, 08:32 PM NHFT
"What is to be done" ... is about his attempts at helping the poor through charity .... very good
I've read it three times, and still am not taking that from his pamphlet. His pamphlet was good, but it was mostly about how political methods actually support the state and how compliance with even simple state mandates breaks down the moral capacity of the one who complies...
Now this idea of helping the poor through charity seems like a tolstoy idea, so maybe i'm reading an abridged version or something.
I've been thinking about this idea of charity a lot, both last night and all day today. I wrote something up about it last night, but after I read it, I thought, "this isn't even what I myself believe" so I tossed it. I feel like my ideas on charity still aren't coming together very well, but the core of it is that charity for charity's sake is a different animal altogether than a different form of charity which seeks to alleviate suffering, find workable alternatives, etc. And that this divide is not healthy, because the two should be integrated somehow.
I guess what I mean to say is this: when I hand a burrito to a homeless man and chat with him for a few minutes, I feel good about myself internally. I feel happy. I feel love and charity. It is very uplifting to me. But I'm not sure that I am accomplishing a whole lot.
On the other hand, working towards legitimate solutions is often times not personally rewarding to the person giving it. And that seems harder anyway because who knows how to strike the root on a problem as big as "poverty"?
Is there a way to bridge these two? To insert an element of the personal in even broad actions?
Quote from: Caleb on March 13, 2008, 10:53 PM NHFT
I've been thinking about this idea of charity a lot, both last night and all day today. I wrote something up about it last night, but after I read it, I thought, "this isn't even what I myself believe" so I tossed it. I feel like my ideas on charity still aren't coming together very well, but the core of it is that charity for charity's sake is a different animal altogether than a different form of charity which seeks to alleviate suffering, find workable alternatives, etc. And that this divide is not healthy, because the two should be integrated somehow.
I guess what I mean to say is this: when I hand a burrito to a homeless man and chat with him for a few minutes, I feel good about myself internally. I feel happy. I feel love and charity. It is very uplifting to me. But I'm not sure that I am accomplishing a whole lot.
On the other hand, working towards legitimate solutions is often times not personally rewarding to the person giving it. And that seems harder anyway because who knows how to strike the root on a problem as big as "poverty"?
Ayn Rand (as imperfect as she was) addressed this perfectly in what she called the "myth of altruism". "Altruists" give because it makes them feel good, which negates their charity as being altruistic ("selfless giving") at all. Their motives are selfish: giving makes them feel good about themselves. Pretending otherwise is hypocritical.
I give to charities out of purely selfish motives: If I should ever need them, I want them to be there for me. It is in my rational self-interest to fund a safety net that might someday catch me. I needn't pretend that I'm doing it "for the people" in order to feel good about it.
There's nothing wrong with feeling good about handing a homeless man a burrito. It's a natural human response to feel gratified about doing good for someone else. Go with that. You can be totally selfish in your inner motivation, yet still do good for someone else.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 14, 2008, 03:12 AM NHFT
I give to charities out of purely selfish motives: If I should ever need them, I want them to be there for me. It is in my rational self-interest to fund a safety net that might someday catch me. I needn't pretend that I'm doing it "for the people" in order to feel good about it.
Perhaps so, but is it the best strategy in the long run?
Your donations to a given charity only help that charity in that dollar amount, and by the time you need the safety net, that money will be long gone. You are, of course, hoping that they will have a steady inflow of donations so that is not an issue, but I fail to see how
your specific donations would help ensure that. Either they will continue to be funded, or they will not -- regardless of your relatively small contribution.
If you save that money instead, and invest it responsibly, you have a much higher certainty of it being there when you need a safety net.
Yet, even with your best planning and efforts at saving and investing, you could still end up needing more than you have personally accumulated. This is where insurance services (not burdened by govt red tape) come in. They are run with a profit motive, and are far more stable than charities.
Of course, such unburdened, low-overhead insurance services do not yet exist, because the AMOG stands squarely in the way. In their absence, I consider the smartest strategy to be saving and investing. Any charities that are destined to stay in operation will be there if that money runs out, whether you've contributed or not, and in the event that you need to fall back on them, you could (in most cases) contribute once you are back on your feet, in order to make good on the obligation you have incurred.
I completely understand that if everyone took this approach, charities would not even exist in the first place. The thing is, I am focusing on arriving at a world where unburdened insurance services
are the safety net, not charities. As I see it, charities themselves are a symptom of the AMOG. Relying on charities amounts to securing your well-being at the expense of others. Even though it is a voluntary relationship, it is still pretty far removed from taking full self-responsibility for your own well-being.
Because of the incredibly burdensome AMOG red tape, most safety net services through insurance are rendered unaffordable. Yet, insurance services are the clearly the self-responsible method of securing a safety net: You take full responsibility for yourself by paying directly for your own safety net(s). You are not asking others to pay for your well-being at all: Each member is
looking out for his own best interest, as they should -- for it is their responsibility and theirs alone.
That is certainly not to say that what you are currently doing, and advocating, is wrong -- not at all. I just question whether it is the smartest approach in terms of longterm self-responsibility.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 13, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 12, 2008, 02:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on March 12, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing.
There seem to be some unspoken assumptions here that perhaps you ought to examine. :)
Such as?
I am aware that with modern technology, it is possible for women much older than fifty to bear children, but it is not yet widely available. I am quite certain that I would like to raise a family, just not yet. I have no interest whatsoever in adopting.
Those were two I was thinking of. Also, the assumption that you can only have a relationship with one romantic partner, or that you have to have children with the person who
is your romantic partner.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 13, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
Thus age is literally just a number -- and to dismiss someone as a potential mate based on an arbitrary number, rather than actual qualities, is not only irrational but amounts to stereotyping, which places an individual at an unfair disadvantage.
That is certainly not an assumption. It is fact.
No argument there.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 13, 2008, 01:21 PM NHFT
Since J'raxis did not leave me a clue as to what potential unspoken assumptions he was referring to ...
Indeed—when trying to get people to challenge their assumptions, it's often better to do so in the form of a vague and non-leading question in order to get them to think about it themselves. Just coming out and stating something in opposition to someone else's beliefs usually puts them in a defensive mode.
P.S.: So you're not wondering if I missed it now—I did see your reply to my "legislative strategy," but I haven't had time to construct a proper answer yet. I'll probably be posting a follow-up sometime this weekend.
Quote from: Caleb on March 13, 2008, 10:53 PM NHFT
Is there a way to bridge these two? To insert an element of the personal in even broad actions?
Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert, once suggested that we each focus on helping one other person. If enough people did that, he believed it would have a tremendous impact. Even if a lot of people don't, if you do it, you're more likely to have a real impact that you can observe. Help one person, or maybe one family, to really turn their life around and that will likely get paid forward in some way. They're no longer using up charity that now becomes available for others and they're also productive which helps the big picture. Some of them may even be inclined to do the same for someone else some day. It seemed like an interesting approach at least. I think in reality it might prove to be very discouraging because I think a lot of people in need are there by choice on some level, i.e. they're not really looking for a hand-up but rather a hand-out. As long as the hand-outs keep coming, maybe there's not much desire for change. I've often thought about testing that.
QuoteAyn Rand (as imperfect as she was) addressed this perfectly in what she called the "myth of altruism". "Altruists" give because it makes them feel good, which negates their charity as being altruistic ("selfless giving") at all.
I agree with Rand but think she misses the larger picture.
It is tautology that you do things because you want to do them, or that you do things because you expect to benefit from them. So in that sense, altruism does not exist.
But the larger picture, in my opinion, has to do with how you approach life and the world. Tolstoy speaks of two general approaches; one is to live for the body, the other for the spirit.
When you live for the body, you will value that which enhances your worldly experiences. You view yourself as a distinct entity from all others, and anything you do is never really for others but always for yourself. If seeing others smile makes you feel good, you'll make a rational judgment in self-interest to do things which make others smile.
When you live for the spirit, on the other hand, you will value that which enhances your spirit and God. The spirit within you is a piece of the spirit of God, and everyone else has a piece of God's spirit too. Instead of seeing yourself as completely distinct from others, you may see yourself reflected in others. Compassion is the exercise of seeing yourself, and seeing God's spirit, in others.
Clearly Rand took and advocated for the first approach. Altruism has no meaning in this approach because all actions are viewed as enhancing the self. In the second approach, I might say altruism still has no meaning. But here it is not because all actions are selfish, but because one understands that we are all of one God, and that therefore service to God, service to others, and service to self are all the same thing.
QuoteYet, even with your best planning and efforts at saving and investing, you could still end up needing more than you have personally accumulated. This is where insurance services (not burdened by govt red tape) come in. They are run with a profit motive, and are far more stable than charities.
While I agree insurance is a good idea for some things, I don't trust them and would think it a bad idea to rely on them as a safety net. It seems to me too easy for them to reject your claim in a time of need, especially if some event causes many needy people at once.
I'd rather rely on family and community as a safety net.
I agree with jacobus on this.
the question I don't think rand gets around to addressing (at least from what i've read) is *why* exactly a person should feel good about helping someone else, unless it is objectively a good thing to do?
i certainly wasn't criticizing that "happy" feeling from helping someone else, just noticing that sometimes it goes away if you focus on broader "more productive" but less personal things, and I was wondering if there are ways to integrate the two so that you are being both productive and personal. I think that the happy feeling that the giver feels is a wholly necessary part of the entire experience, because in experiencing that, I fulfill what I see as man's purpose in life. sort of a paradox - a person can only become self-actualized to the extent that he is willing to focus outside himself.
I like Dale's suggestion, and will probably spend some time thinking about that before I comment further.
Quote from: srqrebel on March 12, 2008, 01:36 PM NHFT
I would personally never place my property at the mercy of another by offering my resources (time, energy, materials, tools, etc.) without ensuring that I have tied my own just compensation to the reputation of my customer. The prospect of losing repeat sales and referrals, and damage to my own reputation, is enough for me to ensure that the customer leaves happy. I need my compensation to be spelled out and agreed to in advance, to ensure that it is likewise tied to their reputation.
Sorry to rehash this, but it's been bugging me a little.
Pretend that someone stiffs you. You aren't going to run to the courts. It seems to me that offering a voluntary service is the most honest system. Everybody else is bluffing. (or else they are actually willing to use the courts).
It also seems ass backwards from what you really want. A voluntary service is a trustful service. It relies on the thought that most people are good and decent. If this isn't fundamentally true, then everything else you strive for is inconsequential.
It seems to me that laws are one way that people are reduced to a state lower than what they really are, because the law takes away the person's need to use his mind and heart to determine what he ought to do. I think that pricing can do the same thing: they distract a person from considering the true value of a thing, and place a focus strictly on a thing's *monetary* value. This is worth such and such a dollar amount. Whereas other considerations might be totally lost, not because the person didn't care, but because he was never challenged to actually think about what the actual value is. A good example might be fair trade coffee. A person might compare the price and if he's only thinking about price, he might say, "oh, that fair trade coffee is completely noncompetitive with this other brand." True, if price is the only consideration, but that person probably values knowing that the people who have produced his coffee have not been exploited, but he doesn't think about it until it is brought to his attention and until he considers it. I think we are too price oriented in our culture. There's nothing like removing a price tag to make someone actually think about how he values something.
Quote from: Caleb on March 14, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
Sorry to rehash this, but it's been bugging me a little.
Pretend that someone stiffs you. You aren't going to run to the courts. It seems to me that offering a voluntary service is the most honest system. Everybody else is bluffing. (or else they are actually willing to use the courts).
this is why i said that menno would not like "voluntary services" .... he doesn't get this yet. I don't think he will get it from reading words. He will have to see how other people live.
I think Menno will only respond to words. That is the way he thinks, he is analytical, and what he analyzes, for the most part, is words. Other people respond to different things.
you keep trying then
Menno, I know you don't use the word much, if at all, but just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself an anarchist? If not, what do you think of anarchists? I think I know the answer but I have a reason for asking.
Quote from: dalebert on March 15, 2008, 09:27 PM NHFT
Menno, I know you don't use the word much, if at all, but just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself an anarchist? If not, what do you think of anarchists? I think I know the answer but I have a reason for asking.
bracing for wall-of-text
:_meteor_guy__by_ChaosEmeraldH
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 14, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
Indeed—when trying to get people to challenge their assumptions, it's often better to do so in the form of a vague and non-leading question in order to get them to think about it themselves. Just coming out and stating something in opposition to someone else's beliefs usually puts them in a defensive mode.
So true! +1 for pointing this out.
Acting in harmony with human nature places one at such a major advantage, it is a very important component of the overall strategy.
Quote from: Caleb on March 14, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
...Pretend that someone stiffs you. You aren't going to run to the courts. It seems to me that offering a voluntary service is the most honest system. Everybody else is bluffing. (or else they are actually willing to use the courts).
I will not use the AMOG's courts.
I will certainly use the court of public opinion, leading to ostracism of the offending party. This is not possible, when the terms of the contract are such that no one but the customer is able to determine whether or not those terms have actually been met.
Quote from: Caleb on March 14, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
It also seems ass backwards from what you really want. A voluntary service is a trustful service. It relies on the thought that most people are good and decent. If this isn't fundamentally true, then everything else you strive for is inconsequential.
I most certainly hold that most people are good and decent. I also recognize the fact that there is a tiny minority of individuals who seem to have no conscience, who will absolutely take you to the cleaners if you let them. Presenting yourself and your property as easy prey for them is not my idea of self-responsibility.
Quote from: Caleb on March 14, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
It seems to me that laws are one way that people are reduced to a state lower than what they really are, because the law takes away the person's need to use his mind and heart to determine what he ought to do. I think that pricing can do the same thing: they distract a person from considering the true value of a thing, and place a focus strictly on a thing's *monetary* value. This is worth such and such a dollar amount. Whereas other considerations might be totally lost, not because the person didn't care, but because he was never challenged to actually think about what the actual value is. A good example might be fair trade coffee. A person might compare the price and if he's only thinking about price, he might say, "oh, that fair trade coffee is completely noncompetitive with this other brand." True, if price is the only consideration, but that person probably values knowing that the people who have produced his coffee have not been exploited, but he doesn't think about it until it is brought to his attention and until he considers it. I think we are too price oriented in our culture. There's nothing like removing a price tag to make someone actually think about how he values something.
Having terms of contract whose fulfillment can be independently verified, is not about applying arbitrary laws; it is about taking peaceable steps to protect yourself and your hard-earned property.
A major reason why the "V" approach does not appeal to me, is that the customer often has no idea of the amount of effort and material that goes into producing the values you deliver to them. You may do quality computer work at a general market value of $1000, only to find out at the "moment of truth" that your customer thinks it is worth only $80.
Since my customers know from the outset exactly what measure of value they can expect from me, it is perfectly fair that I know from the outset exactly what measure of value I can expect from them in return. This enables me to make good on
my responsibility to myself to honestly maximize the fruits of my labor by only exchanging values with those who offer me exactly what I want. It is likewise the customer's responsibility to himself to maximize the value of his hard-earned money by only exchanging it with those who offer him exactly what he wants.
While it is certainly important to act responsibly toward others,
each individual's primary responsibility is toward himself.
so when are you going to answer Dale's simple yes or no question? >:D
also, for everything that you said, I still don't see how the voluntary service is any different. If you agree to do work for someone else for $50 and he doesn't pay you, you won't work for him again. If I agree to do work for someone voluntarily, and they don't give me anything, I might or might not work for him again. I still have the same choice you do.
I totally and unreservedly agree with you Caleb.
Quote from: dalebert on March 15, 2008, 09:27 PM NHFT
Menno, I know you don't use the word much, if at all, but just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself an anarchist? If not, what do you think of anarchists? I think I know the answer but I have a reason for asking.
I have already answered Dale in person, but for the sake of the readers:
"Anarchist" is a word that means so many things to so many people, that the question as stated is impossible to honestly answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'.
I do consider myself an anarchist in the sense that I do not advocate in any way that which currently passes for government.
I just as surely do not have any interest in voluntarily exposing myself to exploitation by criminals. Any mechanisms and peaceable actions employed to deter crime, I consider to fall under genuine government. Hence, the terms that most accurately describe me are "free marketeer" and "voluntaryist".
I'm going to reprint this little piece from the Aim's & Means of the Catholic Workers. You want ideas as to *how* to get there, this is the Catholic Workers idea of how to do it.
--------
In contrast to what we see around us, as well as within ourselves, stands St. Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of the Common Good, a vision of a society where the good of each member is bound to the good of the whole in the service of God.
To this end, we advocate:
--Personalism, a philosophy which regards the freedom and dignity of each person as the basis, focus and goal of all metaphysics and morals. In following such wisdom, we move away from a self-centered individualism toward the good of the other. This is to be done by taking personal responsibility for changing conditions, rather than looking to the state or other institutions to provide impersonal "charity." We pray for a Church renewed by this philosophy and for a time when all those who feel excluded from participation are welcomed with love, drawn by the gentle personalism Peter Maurin taught.
--A decentralized society, in contrast to the present bigness of government, industry, education, health care and agriculture. We encourage efforts such as family farms, rural and urban land trusts, worker ownership and management of small factories, homesteading projects, food, housing and other cooperatives--any effort in which money can once more become merely a medium of exchange, and human beings are no longer commodities.
--A "green revolution," so that it is possible to rediscover the proper meaning of our labor and/or true bonds with the land; a distributist communitarianism, self-sufficient through farming, crafting and appropriate technology; a radically new society where people will rely on the fruits of their own toil and labor; associations of mutuality, and a sense of fairness to resolve conflicts.
* * *
We believe this needed personal and social transformation should be pursued by the means Jesus revealed in His sacrificial love. With Christ as our Exemplar, by prayer and communion with His Body and Blood, we strive for practices of
--Nonviolence. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." (Matt. 5:9) Only through nonviolent action can a personalist revolution come about, one in which one evil will not be replaced simply by another. Thus, we oppose the deliberate taking of human life for any reason, and see every oppression as blasphemy. Jesus taught us to take suffering upon ourselves rather than inflict it upon others, and He calls us to fight against violence with the spiritual weapons of prayer, fasting and noncooperation with evil. Refusal to pay taxes for war, to register for conscription, to comply with any unjust legislation; participation in nonviolent strikes and boycotts, protests or vigils; withdrawal of support for dominant systems, corporate funding or usurious practices are all excellent means to establish peace.
--The works of mercy (as found in Matt. 25:31-46) are at the heart of the Gospel and they are clear mandates for our response to "the least of our brothers and sisters." Houses of hospitality are centers for learning to do the acts of love, so that the poor can receive what is, in justice, theirs, the second coat in our closet, the spare room in our home, a place at our table. Anything beyond what we immediately need belongs to those who go without.
--Manual labor, in a society that rejects it as undignified and inferior. "Besides inducing cooperation, besides overcoming barriers and establishing the spirit of sister and brotherhood (besides just getting things done), manual labor enables us to use our bodies as well as our hands, our minds." (Dorothy Day) The Benedictine motto Ora et Labora reminds us that the work of human hands is a gift for the edification of the world and the glory of God.
--Voluntary poverty. "The mystery of poverty is that by sharing in it, making ourselves poor in giving to others, we increase our knowledge and belief in love." (Dorothy Day) By embracing voluntary poverty, that is, by casting our lot freely with those whose impoverishment is not a choice, we would ask for the grace to abandon ourselves to the love of God. It would put us on the path to incarnate the Church's "preferential option for the poor."
The dignity stuff is scary because it can basically be used to deny people freedoms—if something is "undignified" behavior, now it can be restricted. (This is not a hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_tossing#France) and has already been used in at least one actual legal case.)
If we were to ever establish a "free" society where freedom and dignity is the standard by which people's actions are accepted or condemned, I can easily imagine things such as drug use, prostitution, and many of the other personal-freedom issues libertarians advocate for remaining restricted—just under a new rationale. Allowing oneself to become addicted to a drug is undignified. Prostituting oneself is undignified. &c., &c..
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 16, 2008, 11:39 PM NHFT
The dignity stuff is scary because it can basically be used to deny people freedoms—if something is "undignified" behavior, now it can be restricted. (This is not a hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_tossing#France) and has already been used in at least one actual legal case.)
Same for "disrespect", even against inanimate objects:
http://thenewspaper.com/news/22/2273.asp
UK: Heavy Sentence for Disrespecting Traffic Camera
Courts impose heavy sentences on motorcyclists accused of showing disrespect toward a speed camera.
Two UK motorcyclists received heavy court sentences for showing disrespect toward a speed camera.
I think these arguments are specious, kb and jraxis. You don't make the same claim for "freedom". After all, I view wage slavery as a self-imposed attack on my own freedom. nonetheless, I work for a society where I don't have to make this choice, not a society where someone restricts me from making this choice. It's the same with dignity. The thought that a person is entitled to freedom and dignity means that a person ought to be free from having slavery and indignities imposed upon them, not that a person choosing undignified behavior ought to be a crime.
At heart, here, is an attempt to move beyond the concept of freedom, to a genuine brotherhood, where men lift each other up. and I think that is a necessary, yet overlooked component among those who claim to love freedom. The more I meditate on it, the more I see that freedom is impossible in a world of suspicion, and we must, more than anything else, modify those thoughts toward our fellow man that cause us to view him as something other than a beloved brother.
Most of that is BS...
Justified by some socialistic ideal, that has no restrictions to its existance... except freedom of will.
everybody wants some sort of nice objective standard by which they can write down complicated human interactions in a couple of sentences, "do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?" you better wake up, man, cause if you love freedom or not, that's the same sort of thinking that binds you to laws and legalism, and a desire to control. that's what it seems to me, anyway, that a whole bunch of people are going around talking about freedom, mainly because they've been on the losing end of the control game. but they can't yet see that you've got to move beyond the control game. it's the thinking. it's a circle, and you gotta break out. move beyond it. control is just an illusion, buddy, and when that illusion gives, the only response to try to keep it is violence. or else you can let go of the illusion of control and try to figure out a way of getting along without killing each other. that's all it is. all the rest is just a bunch of word games. and my friend russell's sitting in a jail cell, mainly cause someone thought about rules instead of thinking about a man who has a wife, and who has friends. rules, objective behavior, this and that over and above that and this, that's all that it gets you man. wake up and smell the doritos.
Quote from: Caleb on March 17, 2008, 05:33 PM NHFT
I think these arguments are specious, kb and jraxis. You don't make the same claim for "freedom". After all, I view wage slavery as a self-imposed attack on my own freedom. nonetheless, I work for a society where I don't have to make this choice, not a society where someone restricts me from making this choice. It's the same with dignity. The thought that a person is entitled to freedom and dignity means that a person ought to be free from having slavery and indignities imposed upon them, not that a person choosing undignified behavior ought to be a crime.
If
dignity in this case truly means only
indignities imposed, I can agree with that. However, I am again all too familiar with specific examples of people engaging in 100% consensual yet potentially undignified behavior where opponents try to make the case that such people are being "exploited," taken advantage of without their knowledge, and thus the seemingly consensual undignified behavior is really being "imposed" upon them. I mentioned prostitution earlier, and that also serves as a perfect example here, too.
In some cases, of course, it's true—your example of wage slavery is a good example: Circumstances that ought not exist force people to "willingly" subject themselves to wage slavery. I suppose what we need to strive for is a society in which people's dignity is protected, both in cases where indignity is obviously (
e.g., chattel slavery) or subtly (
e.g., wage slavery) imposed upon them, but that people understand that claims of consent by the actual party in question are an immediate end to the argument.
Quote from: Caleb on March 17, 2008, 06:09 PM NHFT
everybody wants some sort of nice objective standard by which they can write down complicated human interactions in a couple of sentences, "do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?" you better wake up, man, cause if you love freedom or not, that's the same sort of thinking that binds you to laws and legalism, and a desire to control. that's what it seems to me, anyway, that a whole bunch of people are going around talking about freedom, mainly because they've been on the losing end of the control game. but they can't yet see that you've got to move beyond the control game. it's the thinking. it's a circle, and you gotta break out. move beyond it. control is just an illusion, buddy, and when that illusion gives, the only response to try to keep it is violence. or else you can let go of the illusion of control and try to figure out a way of getting along without killing each other. that's all it is. all the rest is just a bunch of word games. and my friend russell's sitting in a jail cell, mainly cause someone thought about rules instead of thinking about a man who has a wife, and who has friends. rules, objective behavior, this and that over and above that and this, that's all that it gets you man. wake up and smell the doritos.
Wide awake.
I'm watching a viewpoint being 'forced' on society 'for its own good'. And that viewpoint is not localized but a global agenda.
Caleb, you seem like one of the freest people I know. I know exactly what you mean about wanting nice clear objective things to measure everything by. Human interaction isn't that clear. We want nice clear lines but those lines don't exist. When we fabricate them, they're arbitrarily assigned by people who don't have any true authority or perfect judgment to do so. But those who insist we need a state, are the ones who are absolutely addicted to this notion of having those clear lines, despite the reality that they're a fantasy. They'll cook up this notion of what makes someone an authority so they can get what they crave.
thanks for the compliment, Dale. :) but I only wish i was half as free as the man sitting in the Westmoreland jail tonight. He really is my inspiration, for as much of a hard time as I give him.
i really do feel differently, though. i think this move out here has been good for me; clearing my head, coming to grips with stuff. i don't think people realize just how completely hard on myself i have been my whole life. for probably the first time in my life, i feel like me.
Well. That must suck!
This is odd... on Sunday night, I had further responded on this thread to one of Caleb's posts regarding the "V for Voluntary Services" approach. Now, both Caleb's post and my response are missing.
Caleb? Know anything about this? :P
Not that is a big deal. It was pretty much a deviation from the subject of the thread, anyway, and relatively unimportant. It is just a bit unsettling that an entire portion of a conversation disappeared without explanation, including my own comments.
Denis deleted them.
Quote from: dalebert on March 18, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
Denis deleted them.
for real? if a person deletes their post, will all the replies to it be deleted too?
Quote from: Caleb on March 18, 2008, 09:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on March 18, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
Denis deleted them.
for real? if a person deletes their post, will all the replies to it be deleted too?
That was a joke, because it seems someone deleted a post of Denis. I was jokingly implying revenge deletions. :-\
ok, sorry for being humorless. i'm not exactly good with these computer thingies, and i've noticed that my post count has gone down, so somewhere along the way i lost about 4 posts, (god only knows which ones they were, and truth be told i don't care) but i don't think kat erased them, and i know i didn't, and i don't think hollywood did ... so :-\ it's possible there's a glitch somewhere.
btw, Denis erased his own post, dale. he's frustrated, i'm sure, right now with the attitudes towards political activism, and as he was always one of the politicos who tried to reach across the aisle and be supportive of non-political methods, i imagine he probably also feels a little betrayed. i profoundly disagree with his methods, and feel sad that 20 years from now he's going to be no closer than he is now. but he is a good person. and all the admins on this board, and the board owner herself, know that. no one would treat him that way.
Quote from: Caleb on March 18, 2008, 11:16 PM NHFT
i profoundly disagree with his methods, and feel sad that 20 years from now he's going to be no closer than he is now.
A lot can change in a few years, and a person's outlook can change quickly. Last year, Friday was a big-time politico in LPNH. Three years ago the Kannings were still registered voters willing to work within the system. And I seem to recall a "Caleb for Congress" campaign in 2006. ;)
Quote from: KBCraig on March 19, 2008, 12:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 18, 2008, 11:16 PM NHFT
i profoundly disagree with his methods, and feel sad that 20 years from now he's going to be no closer than he is now.
A lot can change in a few years, and a person's outlook can change quickly. Last year, Friday was a big-time politico in LPNH. Three years ago the Kannings were still registered voters willing to work within the system. And I seem to recall a "Caleb for Congress" campaign in 2006. ;)
Interesting observation, KB. Add me to that list -- I actually went from installing a 4x8 Ron Paul sign on the back of my work trailer, and twice donating $100 to his campaign, to going completely outside-the-system and deliberately abstaining from voting in the NH primary, literally
in a span of two months.
Can anyone come up with a list of NH freedom activists who have migrated, or are migrating, from being strictly outside-the-system activists, to participating in politics?
Perhaps the "in-crowd" needs a better marketing strategy :D
8)
Quote from: srqrebel on March 19, 2008, 12:22 PM NHFT
Can anyone come up with a list of NH freedom activists who have migrated, or are migrating, from being strictly outside-the-system activists, to participating in politics?
Add me to the list. My enlightenment happened during the Ron Paul campaign as well, and was quite rapid.
Quote from: Caleb on March 18, 2008, 11:16 PM NHFT
i profoundly disagree with his methods, and feel sad that 20 years from now he's going to be no closer than he is now.
Are you saying that in twenty years we'll still have a State around, just the same as it is now, despite not only the political work going on, but also the
nonpolitical work people such as Dale, Menno, the Kannings, and so on, are doing?
Or, if you think that the State will have been significantly reduced or even eliminated by 2028, that anyone will even care if the political side of the Free State Project wasn't the successful side?
QuoteAre you saying that in twenty years we'll still have a State around, just the same as it is now, despite not only the political work going on, but also the nonpolitical work people such as Dale, Menno, the Kannings, and so on, are doing?
Of course not. I think it will be much worse by then.
Freedom is one of those words that is starting to make me cringe when I hear it. Not because it's a bad concept, but because so often the way we think of it shows just how much the idea has become intertwined with the same thinking that causes us to lose our freedom. I've been trying to put my thoughts about this in order, but am still working on that, so don't expect the most coherent development yet.
what i want to show is that freedom isn't a goal that you strive for. i mean think about it. if freedom was a goal, what would you do once you achieved it? freedom just is. you are free, whether you realize it or not. so these things that enslave us are the responses of people who make free choices. bad choices, yes. and when i say "some people" i mean just about everybody. but to break out of that, to understand your freedom in any real fashion (intellectionally, emotionally, spiritually,) you have to let go of the instinctual desire to control. it isn't enough to grasp these concepts with your mind, you must convince yourself to let go of the intense instinctual desire to maintain control, and when enough people do that, we will have a moral society. by moral, i mean a society where people don't harm each other, not a puritanical society. but i don't know that there's really any coherent program for accomplishing that; i think individuals can free themselves from the damaging thoughts that create the state. i don't think society as a whole can. i think it is going to have to be an evolutionary development.
that doesn't mean that these things that people do are useless. every evolutionary development proceeds in steps. that's why i liked menno's quote that i stole. it reminded me of what Gandhi said, something along the lines that "whatever you do is insignificant, but it is crucial that you do it." I stole Menno's line, "Absolutely critical, though minor." I like the phrase, because it's how I see what I am doing.
Then I suppose what I am striving for is not "freedom" itself, but to convince others to let go of that desire to maintain control. To most people, the term freedom serves as nice shorthand for describing the moral society of which you speak.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 20, 2008, 12:39 AM NHFT
Then I suppose what I am striving for is not "freedom" itself, but to convince others to let go of that desire to maintain control. To most people, the term freedom serves as nice shorthand for describing the moral society of which you speak.
Thank you. I agree with this. We will always have those who have a deep inner "need" for rules, laws, and governments. In a vacuum, those lovers of government naturally take control and do whatever they want. This is why I say that anarchy might be preferable, but government is inevitable. (I hope to be proved wrong on the latter point.)
Those people with such a fetish for rules, laws, and "order" can be held at bay if the rules are strong and orderly; if the rules they love so much restrict them from imposing further rules, Liberty lovers can enjoy at least a temporary respite.
I wish we could wave a magic wand and make government go away, and convince everyone that it didn't need to be replaced. The first is hard; the latter is probably impossible.
I believe that if we create sufficiently successful voluntary institutions to replace the various services the State provides, we can indeed make the State go away.
A semantic point, but important nonetheless: It's not the government we need to abolish, but the State. A government is just the apparatus by which the State rules its subjects, and voluntary organizations that people agree to join and obey (in return for some benefit) could be called a government of some sort.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 20, 2008, 01:12 AM NHFT
I believe that if we create sufficiently successful voluntary institutions to replace the various services the State provides, we can indeed make the State go away.
Sounds like we need an exposition to discuss and design the alternatives... Maybe we could get a group together and meet up at PorcFest.. Yeah, I like this idea!
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 20, 2008, 01:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 20, 2008, 01:12 AM NHFT
I believe that if we create sufficiently successful voluntary institutions to replace the various services the State provides, we can indeed make the State go away.
Sounds like we need an exposition to discuss and design the alternatives... Maybe we could get a group together and meet up at PorcFest.. Yeah, I like this idea!
That's a great idea, some sort of alternatives exposition maybe. ;D
[ AltExpo.org (http://altexpo.org) ]
Quote from: Ron Helwig on March 20, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 20, 2008, 01:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 20, 2008, 01:12 AM NHFT
I believe that if we create sufficiently successful voluntary institutions to replace the various services the State provides, we can indeed make the State go away.
Sounds like we need an exposition to discuss and design the alternatives... Maybe we could get a group together and meet up at PorcFest.. Yeah, I like this idea!
That's a great idea, some sort of alternatives exposition maybe. ;D
[ AltExpo.org (http://altexpo.org) ]
What?!? You mean somebody already thought of this!!! What a cool idea! How do I join???
Looks like their site is a little out-of-date -- are they really going to be at the Keene Freedom Fest and at PorcFest and maybe at Burning Porcupine??
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 20, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ron Helwig on March 20, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFT
That's a great idea, some sort of alternatives exposition maybe. ;D
[ AltExpo.org (http://altexpo.org) ]
What?!? You mean somebody already thought of this!!! What a cool idea! How do I join???
Looks like their site is a little out-of-date -- are they really going to be at the Keene Freedom Fest and at PorcFest and maybe at Burning Porcupine??
Perhaps they could use some more volunteers to help them organize their site better, and create some more up-to-date content. I bet they'd be very appreciative of any help. They do seem to have a contact email: info@altexpo.org
:)
Quote from: dalebert on March 19, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on March 19, 2008, 12:22 PM NHFT
Can anyone come up with a list of NH freedom activists who have migrated, or are migrating, from being strictly outside-the-system activists, to participating in politics?
Add me to the list. My enlightenment happened during the Ron Paul campaign as well, and was quite rapid.
No, Dale, you do not belong on THAT list. Go back and read my post more carefully ;)
8)
Quote from: KBCraig on March 20, 2008, 01:04 AM NHFT
This is why I say that anarchy might be preferable, but government is inevitable. (I hope to be proved wrong on the latter point.)
I say it a lot but I'll say it again. Anarchy isn't a goal, KB. It's a path. When individuals reject force as a means for solving problems, the world will gradually become a better place to live in. It's not a new system to be implemented collectively. It's an individual philosophy that affects how we judge what is acceptable or unacceptable in a civilized society. It's OK to believe that we'll never do away with the state. That seems like a common sense prediction to me considering how deeps its tendrils are. What's absolutely counter to any progress in the right direction is thinking it's actually necessary and justifying its existence.
i think that as people make this shift, the world gets better in more ways than just that there is less state. i think overall life improves. one of the benefits (or, depending on your viewpoint, downsides) of my job is that i get a lot of time throughout the day just to think. and lately i've been spending a lot of time thinking about how my life as a whole improves as I shake the control dynamic from my thinking. one of my own observations about myself is that i've sort of had a tendency to let the frustration with the state consume me. it has kind of set my course. and i think that it is important to stand up to people who are hurting others, but i don't want that to define me. so i've been trying consciously to put the state out of my mind, and concentrate on the benefits of life. cause the state isn't life. and to enjoy life and the freedom to be and to live. i'm never going to live to see a world without a state. but i can experience real tangible benefits from shaking this control dynamic right now. it has occurred to me that life seems like so much less of a struggle when you don't have to feel like you must be accountable for what other people do. i think most of our intentional crime is caused by people rebelling against the moral law just because they feel so powerless, and it's a way of feeling empowered, of throwing off constraint so as to feel more liberated.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 14, 2008, 02:37 PM NHFT
P.S.: So you're not wondering if I missed it now—I did see your reply to my "legislative strategy," but I haven't had time to construct a proper answer yet. I'll probably be posting a follow-up sometime this weekend.
srqrebel:—By the way, my answer to most of your questions, I think, is this conversation (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11978.msg229440#msg229440) I had with Caleb.
Quote from: Caleb on March 13, 2008, 08:11 PM NHFT
longer? I think he's just getting sidetracked by all the elderly women he finds hot. ;D
Now, now, let's not pick on him too much for hanging with the blue haired although I do remember him having better taste when he lived in FL. ;)
Menno, I'm so sorry sweetie, I just couldn't resist.
Quote from: sfchik on March 22, 2008, 12:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on March 13, 2008, 08:11 PM NHFT
longer? I think he's just getting sidetracked by all the elderly women he finds hot. ;D
Now, now, let's not pick on him too much for hanging with the blue haired although I do remember him having better taste when he lived in FL. ;)
Menno, I'm so sorry sweetie, I just couldn't resist.
:laughing1: :-X