The Great Explosion By Eric Frank Russell

[Eli]

Someone on the LL2 list cited this work and noted it was better than Heinlein.  I, of course, rushed to refute, but can't precisely.  It reads like an Edgar Burroughs Mars book if Burroughs was an anarchist.  The characters aren't as interesting as Heinleins, but the politics are better (ie more libertarian).  And the folks on the last planet they visit remind me of Russell, appropriately.  I think I may try and get permission from EF Russell's estate to podcast this book.  It really was awesome and eyeopening.

http://tmh.floonet.net/books/tge/tgetoc.html

I won't.

[ancapagency]

I haven't read anything by him except Wasp and And Then There Were None -- and both are excellent.  Thanks for the link to more of his work!

"When one is fighting a paper-war one uses paper-war tactics that in the long run can be just as lethal as high explosive. And the tactics are not limited in scope by use of one material. The said material is very variable in form. Paper can convey a private warning, a public threat, secret temptation, open defiance; wall-bills, window-stickers, leaflets dropped by the thousands from the roof-tops, cards left on seats or slipped into pockets and purses... money." - Wasp, p. 75 of 1957 paperback edition

[David]

I recopied a few quotes relavent to this thread from another thread.

To briefly diverge back to ostracism and Neil Smith  I also want to suggest that everyone here read The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell.  http://tmh.floonet.net/books/tge/tgetoc.html  The last section of the book is particularly telling.  A society that only uses ostracism for social control (and therefore hardly needs it) and runs a gift/obligation economy.  Pretty brilliant.  I bring it up because this conversation makes me wonder how the folks in that book would handle the initiation of force.  The talk about just one weapon, developed by... well, I don't wanna ruin it.  The Weapon is "I won't."  Having just read this book I'm still in the throws of what I think is a fundamental shift in thinking. I almost feel like I comprehend Russell (ours not the author) for the first time ever.

Eric Russells book is interesting.  The caracters put themselves at risk to be taken advantage of, until they realize they are being taken advantage of.  Then they ostrasize.  For example.  Guy A goes into a pub owned by guy B, guy A promises to pay with something or other, guy B accepts.  Essentually a tab is created.  At some point it will have to be reconciled, or go into default.  Innocent till proven guilty.  Once guy A goes into default, he will be ostrasized by guy B, and maybe his friends.  Guy A can scam as many people in town as possible, to a point.  When he is ostrasized by almost everyone, he either works hard to find new victims or move on. 
It is true that each time he makes new victims elsewhere, but the initial community is safe from him. 
Restitution is great, but it will never be made fair.  Gov'ts are created and given an enourmous amounts of power on the promise of granting 'justice' and creating safety ect.  Our politicians and top military mass murderers will never even be held responsible for crimes against humanity, much less pay restitution for their victims. 
I believe one has the right to defend oneself, but most of what we call justice is not defence, it is revenge. 
I've slowly and grudginly come to the conclusion that pure justice will never be possible, but once a person has proven they have hurt someone, (innocent till proven guilty) then they can be rightfully ostrasized. 
It would be more practical if there was more private property, with rights that are actually respected (when pigs fly    ).  As a person with a particularly violent reputation could be ordered to stay off someones property, and force could be used to enforce the property rights. 
I was early on very facinated in the desire to find a clear black and white answer to rights, violations of them, ect.  But there is a lot of grey.  It is very difficult to speak of customery, common, or moral, because these things change depending on the person you are talking to.  Someone down the street may have an entirely different viewpoint than you as to what is 'right and wrong', and believe with every fiber of their being that they have the right to use force, even deadly force to enforce their version of right and wrong. 
This is actually the reason I have given up on the idea of trying to have an anarchic society in whole.  It is encroachment, a violation of someones right to interfere in the choices of master (gov't) that other people either have made, or have accepted. 

Calling Russell's system obligation or gift is actually inaccurate and inelegant.  He makes a point of the necessity of it being a local system.  Of it being foolish to take on risk for stranger.  And you can see 'tit for tat' in Russell's story from before Nash's discovery and Axelrod's testing. I just couldn't think of what to call it without discussing it too much. 

But basically it is based on the 'weapon,'  "I won't," and its power.  Trade with me?  I won't.  Give me lunch?  I won't.  Pay taxes? I won't.  Take me to your leader?  Confused stare... guffaw... I won't.  Acknowledge my power? I won't.  I'm really not explaining well enough and Russell spends a lot of time setting it up.  A must read, top of my list. 

Caleb I hope you read it so we can chat about it.

[David]

An entire community of people saying I won't to authority is very powerful.  It is a clear form of civ. dis..  It really is a form of anarchism, without calling itself anarchist.  It is the essence of what I want to do with the anarchy house project.  Just on a smaller scale.     anarchyhouseproject1.org/home 

[John Edward Mercier]

If the community is the only 'authority' and the entire community is saying 'I won't'... not much different than law. The problem with ostracizing individuals is unequivocally comparable to the restrictions on sex offender housing going around the State.

[David]

The biggest difference is it is based on the choices of the individual.  A law attempts to dictate something weather you like it or not. 
Btw, I am not opposed to refusing business or association to repeat sex offenders.  People have the right to protect themselves from perceived threats, real or not.  Even from first time offender. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Not really. Laws are based on the 'majority' of the community... an entire community would be a definate majority. An individual opposed to the offender, living in a community where the majority is accepting... would find the situation just as unacceptable.

The individual refusal of business transaction, or association, would have little affect. They would simply live next door... and the opposition would result in self ostracism.

[Caleb]

Some laws are based on the majority in the community. Some are not. And there is a clear difference between a "law" and individual noncooperation. I'm wondering if you even read the book. Maybe it would help for you to read it, and then we can discuss it properly.

[Eli]

You read it Caleb?  What did you think?  Should we tag a spoiler warning on this thread before we mention who invented the Weapon?

[Caleb]

I hadn't seen this thread. I think it was one of Menno's posts that you started talking about it, and I didn't want to hijack his thread, so I posted my own little take in it's own thread.  Sorry, if I had seen this thread I would have posted here.

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=13592.0

I think we should start marketing "I Won't!"

[Eli]

Ok, I looked over the book. To be honest, I skipped past most of the first three planets, as it was pretty obvious that these planets weren't the ones under consideration...

So here's my take on it:  you've got these guys trading "obs" back and forth instead of dollars. But, while everybody needs food, (so the farmer would be ok), not everybody needs more specialized skills. So they get around this by trading "obs", they keep track. Sally owes Bob an "ob", but Jim owes Sally an "ob", so Sally gives Jim's ob to Bob... do you see where I'm going with this? To keep track of it all, the main consideration is that everybody needs to know everybody in the community.

But if everybody knows everybody else, then why do you need the complex "ob" system in the first place? It seems to me that in a small community, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does work, with those who won't give according to their ability getting the cold shoulder and finding it increasingly difficult to find people who are willing to give to their need. In this case, I don't think that total ostracism would ever occur. You start getting 30 or 40% of people who won't provide anything for you, plus a kindly older figure who still sets a plate before you but also gives you a little grandfatherly advice that you better shape up a little and pull your weight or things are going to get even worse ... it seems to me that there doesn't need to be any quantifying it. The whole "ob" system is just a fancy way of making sure that everyone is pulling their weight, but in a small community where everyone knows each other, everyone knows if someone isn't pulling their weight anyway.

That is fine.  I'll just quote you and respond here.  I think for me, the difference is human nature.  I think in the 'from each to each system,' ie idealized communism, there is a stated obligation that the farmer provide to everyone according to their need.  I think the system you talk about is not, to each according to his need.  I think communism as stated requires care for deadbeats while Russell's system doesn't.  I think that an ob system (which I don't really advocate, I think money and price work pretty well and EFR's system is like price only simpler) allows a greater level of cooperation.  I think your communism doesn't historically work outside of extended family groups.

[Eli]

We should start marketing "I won't."  I think the book is currently OOP.  I'm looking into it.

[Caleb]

I wasn't suggesting marketing the book.  I was suggesting marketing the two words "I Won't". It could be on t-shirts, ball caps, maybe even flags, etc.  The great thing about it is that it is a great conversation starter just by itself. "I won't? You won't what?"

The book itself didn't do much for me on an artistic level. I thought the characters were 2 dimensional, almost cookie cutter characters. The plot wasn't close to being real. And by real, I don't mean that it's a fantasy genre, because obviously fantasy isn't "real" in that sense, but just, ok, take LOTR. Yeah, it's fantasy. But if there were such a thing as a Ring of Power created by elves, then its exactly the sort of thing that might happen. I'm not feeling the same about that book from a literature standpoint.

[Caleb]

That is fine.  I'll just quote you and respond here.  I think for me, the difference is human nature.  I think in the 'from each to each system,' ie idealized communism, there is a stated obligation that the farmer provide to everyone according to their need.  I think the system you talk about is not, to each according to his need.  I think communism as stated requires care for deadbeats while Russell's system doesn't.  I think that an ob system (which I don't really advocate, I think money and price work pretty well and EFR's system is like price only simpler) allows a greater level of cooperation.  I think your communism doesn't historically work outside of extended family groups.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You say:

1) "communism implies a stated obligation that the farmer provide to EVERYONE according to their need."

but wait ...

2) "I think the system you talk about is not to each according to his needs."

Good. You noticed my modification. but ...

3) "I think communism as stated requires care for deadbeats while Russell's system doesn't"

#3 is an excellent point for the type of system that I'm not advocating.  You acknowledge my modification, but then you don't address it. And it changes everything. You only state this about my modification:

I think your communism doesn't historically work outside of extended family groups.

Your point being, I assume, that it would only work in small groups. I agree. Like I said, I think that a necessary precondition for communism to work is that everyone in the system must know each other. But that is also a precondition for Russell's system.

I don't see a way around using money for non-local transactions.

[John Edward Mercier]

Some laws are based on the majority in the community. Some are not. And there is a clear difference between a "law" and individual noncooperation. I'm wondering if you even read the book. Maybe it would help for you to read it, and then we can discuss it properly.

A majority noncooperation would constitute an ostracism... and individual against noncooperation would contitute a self-exile.

Sociology doesn't change. Goes back to the right/left brain function test... draw ten little circles, now connect them all. Next diagram draw ten little circles, connect all leaving one connect undone. Next diagram draw ten little circles, but leaving one circle without connections.

Is it the offender that is left unconnected, or the self-exiled?