QUESTION: What is your poltical affiliation?

[LMNO]

Also,


Chapter 80

In a place where information is suppressed,
and curiosity stifled,
The people will be uncaring, unwise, and not free.
They will rely on tradition as their guides;
They will not make observations,
Or try things out,
Or experiment,
Or play.
They will be suspicious of outsiders
just as they are with new ideas.
Their minds will be as stagnant
as the pond where they dump their garbage.
They are surely as dead as they can be,
though they still draw breath.

[MMIX]

I'm another 'other', a lifelong Trot, but spent half my life voting Tory on the grounds that you probably should have a party in Government that actually believes in the system it is overseeing. Then they lurched so far to the right that I couldn't even see them with a telescope, and dragged all the other parties with them, talk about moving the goalposts . . .sheesh, they moved the halfway line. So I've spent that last 20 yrs voting for a selection of Labour/Lib Dem/Green candidates. They say you get more conservative with age - but that's total BS from my perspective.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La? 

No, that's under Chinese control.  What I AM going to do is life my life by my terms.  Or kill me.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La? 

No, that's under Chinese control.  What I AM going to do is life my life by my terms.  Or kill me.

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

EVERYONE lives by their own terms.  Even if that means they adopt some or all of someone else's terms...most people are more comfortable doing that. 

In my case, I LIKE having police (so long as they are kept under control and have all their vaccinations), fire departments, and public roads and schools.  The fact that I find the above to be substandard recently does not mean that I wish to abolish all of them, rather than attempt to repair them.

So I can't be an anarchist.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

EVERYONE lives by their own terms.  Even if that means they adopt some or all of someone else's terms...most people are more comfortable doing that. 

In my case, I LIKE having police (so long as they are kept under control and have all their vaccinations), fire departments, and public roads and schools.  The fact that I find the above to be substandard recently does not mean that I wish to abolish all of them, rather than attempt to repair them.

So I can't be an anarchist.

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

If the spags can vote and say "No one is allowed to eat cactus" then do you submit to the entity called government or do you say "That's fine for you spags, I'ma have me some cacti now." The former allows the government to direct their life. The latter directs their own life. The former may be a Democrat or a Republican... the latter, is acting as a rational anarchist. The question lies in how you cede your personal power... do you hand it over to the government and let them tell you what to do and how to do it... or do you make all final decisions yourself, based on your views, opinions and ideas?

Do you submit to government, or do you refuse to submit? If you refuse... then we're discussing only the degree to which you are an anarchist.

Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

Then you're going to have to accept some level of government, and last time I checked, the very definition of anarchy is "without government". 

Now, this "rational anarchism" so far as I've seen, seems to be Ayn Rand in a funny dress.  I could be wrong, of course, but so far as I've seen here and elsewhere, it mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Me?  I'm just a criminal.  I was born wrong, or something.  I like laws, yet I also like to break laws, either because I disagree with the law, or because it's something I feel like doing and I am willing to accept the risk.  That's not "rational anarchism", it's criminal behavior (as opposed to morally wrong behavior), as I occasionally break the very same laws I support. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

Then you're going to have to accept some level of government, and last time I checked, the very definition of anarchy is "without government".  

Now, this "rational anarchism" so far as I've seen, seems to be Ayn Rand in a funny dress.  I could be wrong, of course, but so far as I've seen here and elsewhere, it mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Me?  I'm just a criminal.  I was born wrong, or something.  I like laws, yet I also like to break laws, either because I disagree with the law, or because it's something I feel like doing and I am willing to accept the risk.  That's not "rational anarchism", it's criminal behavior (as opposed to morally wrong behavior), as I occasionally break the very same laws I support.  

Nope its not Ayn Rand, she was trying to argue how everybody should act. Who should be in charge and who should pay the bill and which bits of private enterprise the government should keep their nose out of.

Rational Anarchism is personal... "How will I act, irregardless of what everyone else does?" So I can support whatever democratic government in in place, because the free people who believe that they need it, freely vote for it and freely put themselves under it. They are as free to live under the rules they choose as I am.

And apparently what you call Criminal behavior, Heinlein calls rational anarchism... I don't care what label we use, as long as we both make our own damn decisions and don't play serf to the government.

* EDIT: Also, laissez faire capitalism is not generally considered in the purview of rational anarchism, as it is not a personal issue. Smoking pot  (just like eating cactus) though are personal issues... so...

[AFK]

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

[Shai Hulud]

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.
[...]
Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

The difference between government and your rational anarchism is all in the names.  Replace police with private security force, replace government maintained road with tolls roads, replace public fire departments with private fire departments.  I don't think an anarchic society would look very different from a governed society, because people would instantly replace the illusions of government that they need.

The thing you're missing, Dr. RB, is that the "rational anarchism" you're describing isn't really any different than what's going on right now.  You're free to submit yourself to the police as you like, and if you don't they're going to come down on you unless you're clever enough to get away with it.  How would a privately run police force be different?  If anything it would be worse, since it would be little more than a gang of thugs with no illusory government telling them they have to respect fictional rights.

I like Heinlein too, he was a helluva good science fiction writer, but he was way to pie-eyed and cantankerous to have practical politics for the present generation.  He's probably right though that pseudo laissez faire capitalism is the only sort of economy that can function in an interplanetary society, but that's so far in the distant future that it shouldn't matter to us in the here and now.

Now, this "rational anarchism" ... mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Actually, you make a pretty compelling argument for rational anarchism right there.

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Yeah, they're called "the pharmaceutical industry."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nope its not Ayn Rand, she was trying to argue how everybody should act. Who should be in charge and who should pay the bill and which bits of private enterprise the government should keep their nose out of.

*shrug*  So do rational anarchists, when you think about it.  They just have a different solution set.

And apparently what you call Criminal behavior, Heinlein calls rational anarchism...

Tell it to the judge.

I don't care what label we use, as long as we both make our own damn decisions and don't play serf to the government.

What government, come to think of it?  We're serfs to large corporations that own a collection of fools and thieves a few thousand miles from where I live.

Decide all you like.  If you get out of line, they'll kill you.  Or jail you.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they'll just fire you, and let you be as rational as you like under a bridge.

[AFK]

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

Only if they hand off responsibility for their decisions to that society. Allow me to let Prof La Paz clarify, cause he says it better than I can:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."