Breaking: Drama at Manch Porc Manor

[Perilous]

Not to mention using the threat of the state to get his way.

I would like to take a moment to defend Adam in this matter.  I disagree with the concept of a state on a philosophical basis.  But the state is a reality of our lives at the moment.  If Adam genuinely felt threatened, the state is one outlet of his to protect himself.

Protect himself from what?! Being evicted with 30 days notice? That's not a rights violation. If you respect property rights, you get the fuck out when you're told.

Could we put this thread of the conversation on hold until Alec can respond to this?  There are some facts that we're missing, me included.  I was not present when Alec requested Adam to leave, and I was not present when Alec served Adam the papers (two separate events).

[ReverendRyan]

But voluntarily funding the state is something else altogether.

"Adam Mackler Productions is a proud supporter of the City of Seattle, which has encouraged this important artistic flourishing. Adam Mackler Productions gives the City of Seattle five percent of all door receipts from all AMP events held within the city. AMP supports Seattle because Seattle supports the arts!"

[John Edward Mercier]

OK, so, you have a house which is nearly full of people who are either complete anarcho-voluntaryists or are rapidly approaching it. Throw into this mix someone who asks highly inappropriate detailed personal questions of everyone, is highly secretive about himself, gives off an air of untrustworthiness and general "creepiness," and when something really serious happens, resorts to personal attacks instead of answering the accusation against him. Not to mention using the threat of the state to get his way. These are not ways to win friends and influence people, especially in this movement.

That would be the definition of an anarchist... totally self-governed striving towards a perceived maximum personal value.

[Mellamo]

OK, so, you have a house which is nearly full of people who are either complete anarcho-voluntaryists or are rapidly approaching it. Throw into this mix someone who asks highly inappropriate detailed personal questions of everyone, is highly secretive about himself, gives off an air of untrustworthiness and general "creepiness," and when something really serious happens, resorts to personal attacks instead of answering the accusation against him. Not to mention using the threat of the state to get his way. These are not ways to win friends and influence people, especially in this movement.

That would be the definition of an anarchist... totally self-governed striving towards a perceived maximum personal value.

By bringing harm to others? That's the definition of an asshole, not an anarchist.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I've met a handful of FSP participants, and as far as I know, nobody involved here.

Mackler sounds like he's got something to hide, even if it is a two-way drama, I think it was highly immature how, rather than saying "Your accusations are false, I'm offended by them" he resorted to attack the mental state of someone making a claim against him.

Could we put this thread of the conversation on hold until Alec can respond to this? [...] I was not present when Alec requested Adam to leave, and I was not present when Alec served Adam the papers (two separate events).

I'm a voluntaryist, and while I understand what you're saying, to me what happened when Alec serves the papers are irrelevant. Even by the most loose definition of "libertarian" you recognize and protect property rights. To me, the "You're unwelcome in my house" was the end of it unless there's some explicit contract stating he needs to be served prior to being told to leave. If that's the case, the telling him was irrelevant since he's contracted to serve papers.

I don't know what the issue is, I understand Meg claims she was assaulted - true or not, the way he's handled himself on the forums makes me reluctant to deal with him. Several people claim he's creepy and untrustworthy and some of those people I actually do trust.

[dalebert]

That would be the definition of an anarchist... totally self-governed striving towards a perceived maximum personal value.

The part in bold sounds more like objectivism which is completely unrelated to anarchy (and in fact a lot of objectivists reject anarchy, irrationally IMO, but that's another long thread). Anarchy is merely the rejection of archons, or a ruling elite class of people like politicians and police. Trying to associate a lot of other meanings to it is probably why there are so many flavors of anarchist.

Regarding objectivism, it's an easy case to make that it's NOT in your self interest to isolate yourself and make everyone distrust you and not want to do business with you. It is generally understood within the philosophy that it's in our self interest to work with, e.g. openly trade with, others in a totally voluntary and honest manner. It's in your self interest to develop and maintain a reputation as a trustworthy and likable person. It's a common straw man to portray objectivism as a philosophy promoting back-stabbing selfishness. Ayn Rand talked about the "virtue of selfishness", and so kind of set herself up for this with her choice of language, but I believe her intention was to sort of shock people out of the indoctrination they had received that promoted self-sacrifice as a justification for a vast social state.

[J’raxis 270145]

But voluntarily funding the state is something else altogether.

"Adam Mackler Productions is a proud supporter of the City of Seattle, which has encouraged this important artistic flourishing. Adam Mackler Productions gives the City of Seattle five percent of all door receipts from all AMP events held within the city. AMP supports Seattle because Seattle supports the arts!"

Is Mackler even an anarchist/voluntaryist?

We all need to remember that not every FSP participant is—yet, at least. Even though I don't support it, and wouldn't do it myself, I'm not going to fault someone who still does believe in the State from using the State's legal system when such person genuinely feels they've been wronged. I recommend to everyone involved in disputes that've reached an impasse to use a mediator instead of the courts, but I understand that people who are freestaters, but not anarchists, are still going to see legitimacy in using the courts. And, if we can convince such people to sit down with a mediator, and the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it serves as an example and may very well convince them of the superiority of such solutions in the future.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I understand that people who are freestaters, but not anarchists, are still going to see legitimacy in using the courts. And, if we can convince such people to sit down with a mediator, and the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it serves as an example and may very well convince them of the superiority of such solutions in the future.

Understood. That whole 'Be the change you want to see in the world' would mean to me that if I had an issue with someone, encourage them to resolve it with third party mediation. That said, supposedly the guy wouldn't even open his door and talk, let alone arbitrate. Talking to the person you have a problem with is step one, even prior to arbitration, IMO unless it's literally a life threatening situation, in which case running to post on forums rather than using defensive force is probably a bad decision.

[J’raxis 270145]

I understand that people who are freestaters, but not anarchists, are still going to see legitimacy in using the courts. And, if we can convince such people to sit down with a mediator, and the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it serves as an example and may very well convince them of the superiority of such solutions in the future.

Understood. That whole 'Be the change you want to see in the world' would mean to me that if I had an issue with someone, encourage them to resolve it with third party mediation. That said, supposedly the guy wouldn't even open his door and talk, let alone arbitrate. Talking to the person you have a problem with is step one, even prior to arbitration, IMO unless it's literally a life threatening situation, in which case running to post on forums rather than using defensive force is probably a bad decision.

Well, if I understand correctly, one job of the mediator is to get the two people to talk to one another. All they have to do first is agree to the mediation. Often, parties are so pissed off at each other that neither will deal with one another, which is one thing the presence of the impartial mediator is supposed to help with.

And, it sounds to me like everyone else in the house has taken the side against Mackler, so it's understandable he doesn't want to deal with them. Mackler's also a lawyer, so he probably understands that if reveals something to the person he has a dispute with, or a bystander, it could be held against him in a court proceeding. The freestater mediator I recommend vows confidentiality, asks the parties to agree, and destroys his records at the end of the mediation session, so nothing can be used in a court proceeding if it ends up coming to that afterward.

Also, a minor point, but mediation and arbitration are two different things: Courts arbitrate (decide who's right and who's wrong), whereas a mediator attempts to find a solution both parties can be happy with.

[Mellamo]

I understand that people who are freestaters, but not anarchists, are still going to see legitimacy in using the courts. And, if we can convince such people to sit down with a mediator, and the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it serves as an example and may very well convince them of the superiority of such solutions in the future.

Understood. That whole 'Be the change you want to see in the world' would mean to me that if I had an issue with someone, encourage them to resolve it with third party mediation. That said, supposedly the guy wouldn't even open his door and talk, let alone arbitrate. Talking to the person you have a problem with is step one, even prior to arbitration, IMO unless it's literally a life threatening situation, in which case running to post on forums rather than using defensive force is probably a bad decision.

Well, if I understand correctly, one job of the mediator is to get the two people to talk to one another. All they have to do first is agree to the mediation. Often, parties are so pissed off at each other that neither will deal with one another, which is one thing the presence of the impartial mediator is supposed to help with.

And, it sounds to me like everyone else in the house has taken the side against Mackler, so it's understandable he doesn't want to deal with them. Mackler's also a lawyer, so he probably understands that if reveals something to the person he has a dispute with, or a bystander, it could be held against him in a court proceeding. The freestater mediator I recommend vows confidentiality, asks the parties to agree, and destroys his records at the end of the mediation session, so nothing can be used in a court proceeding if it ends up coming to that afterward.

Also, a minor point, but mediation and arbitration are two different things: Courts arbitrate (decide who's right and who's wrong), whereas a mediator attempts to find a solution both parties can be happy with.

We have not really explained what happened yet. This is not a situation in which mediation is appropriate. Details will come.

[Puke]

[error]

Indeed. Mediation may be good for certain types of interpersonal disputes, but proposing "mediation" between a victim of physical violence and the person who committed the act, or is even accused of committing the act, is not only highly inappropriate, it's insensitive and offensive.

As for Mackler, after having observed what's been going on in this house and how he has acted both in the forums and in person, I can only come to the conclusion that it's very likely that he committed the violent and damaging acts of which he's accused, that he has no remorse whatsoever for having done so, and that he should be treated as dangerous to those around him.

This judgment comes primarily from the circumstantial evidence available and that when asked to respond, Mackler acted and continues to act like a guilty defendant trying to weasel his way out of something, rather than like an innocent person. Maybe such a charge would stand up in court and maybe it would not. Cases have been prosecuted successfully with less. But that's not the point: He acts in an untrustworthy manner. Even if he were entirely innocent, I cannot trust him because of the way he failed to respond substantively to the accusations and launched vicious and irrelevant personal attacks.

Anyone coming into contact with this person should take appropriate precautions to protect themselves and their property.

[J’raxis 270145]

Indeed. Mediation may be good for certain types of interpersonal disputes, but proposing "mediation" between a victim of physical violence and the person who committed the act, or is even accused of committing the act, is not only highly inappropriate, it's insensitive and offensive.

The only just solution to an act of aggression in a free society is full restitution, by the offender, to the victim. And if we don't want to involve the State courts, how do you propose we get to that? Others seem to be pushing this in the direction of ostracizing Mackler, but in my opinion, social ostracism is only useful as a way of encouraging restitution from recalcitrant offenders, not a form of punishment itself. Ostracism (and other forms of non-restitutional punishment) may be emotionally satisfying but they don't really accomplish anything more than that.

I don't see trying to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution as inappropriate at all, and if I were in the place of the victim, I certainly wouldn't find it insensitive or offensive. I would much rather have an offender make restitution to me than either have them punished by a third party and/or become an outcast.

[error]

I'm all for a mutually satisfactory solution, if it is possible to find one.

[Feanor7]

J'Raxis,
     This is not a philosophical hypothetical situation.  It involves real people, and real issues with the safety and security of those in Porc Manor.  This is not a "teaching moment" or whatever else you would like it to be.