ClumsyMonkey.net

by **Korzic** » 6/1/2006, 8:40 am

No point in hikacking your last thread with an unrelated topic. Ill start the new one here.

Before I go any further I'd like you to clarify just how far you take self governance. Are we talking on an individual level or as large as a self governing city?

**EDIT**

And for the sake of the debate, I want to at least make sure everyone is on the same page. My definition of self governance is the total abolition of law and order and leaving everyone to do as they please essentially. This imo is true self governance. OF course you can have forms of self governance within professions and corporations and the like ie Hyppocratic Oath. And organised crime is usually referred to as self governing because as a collective they have their own laws which they hold their members to which are not what society dictates. However, judging from your past comments (correct me if I'm wrong) you oppose any form of democratic process which is usually how the leaders of any self governing body are chosen (which means you aren't self governing). Which leads us back to square 1. BUt I'd like to hear your defintion first or rather at least your interpretation of it. This way we can all have fun and debate.

by **nelison** » 6/1/2006, 11:41 am

Self Governance as far as I understand it is the abolition of governance and therefore laws. To me, it's entirely based on property rights (which isn't unlike the laws we abide by today), and the general desire for humans to want to live and survive (thus creating as much order as there is today). There's this idea in anarchy that people don't need to be governed because they can make proper decisions for themselves, and private companies are able to provide the services that governments currently handle.

I think it's the extreme version of what we're already seeing, especially as neo-liberalism has caused companies to run the show and governments are just puppets who make legislation to help businesses make more profits. It's based on this idea that democracy isn't working. Politicians aren't trusted, most governments (at least in countries not practicing PR) aren't voted in by a proportional part of the population, and those who have ideals that aren't in the majority are marginalized. A good example of this might be a North American who believes in Communism but yet doesn't have any chance of living under such a system.

Under anarchy, while there is no government, people are allowed to form collectives to live as they like. So if a neighbourhood of people wants to tax its "citizens" to help the greater good, they are welcome to do so as long as all members agree, the same can be achieved through Charities, Political parties and Church/religions. I almost see it as a devolution of democracy where citizens have a direct say in how their lives are lived, even to the point where they can be completely isolated from the rest of society.

Personally, I'm not an anarchist. I think there just needs to be a drastic reformation of democracy, where the tyranny of the majority doesn't exist. The first step is democratic reform, and I'd like to see democracies work at a much smaller level than they currently do. I think people are social beings, and a book like Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom" is interesting enough to point out that people are typically afraid of isolation. We need support systems and such, but I can understand completely why people don't like how governments can use force to scare people into a support system.

Okay, that's enough for now and Chris and Doug are much more into it than I am, so hopefully they'll follow up.

by **starvingeyes** » 6/1/2006, 3:05 pm

i oppose force, or rather, the iniation of the use of it.

i also reject the notion that some men are fit to rule over others.

so yes, i am an anarchist. i believe it the total dissolution of the state. think of it as 100% deregulation of everything.

by **Korzic** » 6/2/2006, 5:33 am

starvingeyes wrote:i oppose force, or rather, the iniation of the use of it.

i also reject the notion that some men are fit to rule over others.

so yes, i am an anarchist. i believe it the total dissolution of the state. think of it as 100% deregulation of everything.

Do you believe then, that you could exist harmoniously amongst other people if everyone had their own code of ethics by which they lived?

by **starvingeyes** » 6/2/2006, 2:46 pm

yes. i exist harmonisously amongst other people today, don't i?

by **crustine** » 6/2/2006, 5:00 pm

But each of you exist within a society that is laden with rules and social norms. I wonder how far anarchy really exists. I am comming from an evolutionary perspective and there is much that is hard wired in us as humans that wants to organize and categorize.

If we look at the few tribes that exist outside of the constraints of industrialized societies, they too have built community structures. Is this inante?

I love this discussion .

by **nelison** » 6/2/2006, 5:17 pm

He's not saying you can't create social structures. He just doesn't think you should be forced into one. Currently, you're forced to exist in the society that you were pretty much born into, and if you and like minded individuals wanted to live in your own way, you're not allowed to because the government then uses force so that way you will conform to their wishes.

I think that if government was abolished you would find that people who wanted certain structures would go about and create them (such as creating social groups that might lend eachother assistance that would have be performed by the government before), but people who wanted to be individualistic would go about their own business. It's living with as much or as little assistance as you might desire, and it would create a lot of community driven initiatives to ensure the greater good prevails.

by **crustine** » 6/2/2006, 9:19 pm

I am not sure i completely agree that you can not live in your own way as a group of like minded individuals. Look at the mormon groups, communes and menonites. Each of these groups live under their own governance and for the most part autonomous from mainstream society. Yes they must live by the laws of the country that they exist in.

by **nelison** » 6/3/2006, 8:42 am

They are still forced to pay taxes.

by **crustine** » 6/3/2006, 9:29 am

so taxes equate with self governance. Okay I can see that.

by **thirdhour** » 6/3/2006, 12:49 pm

but the thing is, independant "free" social groups can only exist for a single generation. after that, everyone's born into it and suddenly people aren't there for the same reasons as the original generation.

by **Korzic** » 6/5/2006, 7:24 am

starvingeyes wrote:yes. i exist harmonisously amongst other people today, don't i?

No, I disagree. There are plenty of people out there who would not live harmoniously with you. From hardened criminals to the hard headed. From the rabid of each side of the political spectrum. From those who bullied you at school to those who bully you now (in what ever form). It is impossible, because for each idea that you maintain there is someone who will rail against it. To take an extreme example. There are still certain people who practice cannibalism. Would you live harmoniously amongst them if you were to be their next dinner? Or if not you, what about a family member?

I think all of you have overlooked what I stated in the very beginning. Anarchy is a paradox. Anarchism is all about the individual. But individuality is what prevents anarchism from ever working.

by **Bandalero** » 6/5/2006, 10:05 am

it won't work, warlords will eventually run everything.

by **nelison** » 6/5/2006, 11:08 am

I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.

There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.

In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.

by **Korzic** » 6/6/2006, 9:58 am

J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.

There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.

In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.

*boggle* This is no different than what we have today? I pay premiums to have private health insurance, I pay premiums to have car insurance, I pay fees for gym membership and I don't have to pay to belong to any political party, I just vote for whom I best feel represents my views.

by **Korzic** » 6/6/2006, 9:59 am

Bandalero wrote:it won't work, warlords will eventually run everything.

For some reason I read that as warlocks. I was trying to figure out if you werejust trying to be funnny or making some obsucre WoW reference.

by **nelison** » 6/6/2006, 10:28 am

Korzic wrote:
J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.

There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.

In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.

*boggle* This is no different than what we have today? I pay premiums to have private health insurance, I pay premiums to have car insurance, I pay fees for gym membership and I don't have to pay to belong to any political party, I just vote for whom I best feel represents my views.

But it isn't what we have today. People are still forced to live under the beliefs of others. In Canada people aren't allowed to pay for health care if they so desire. It means that people have to pay taxes and then go to hospitals that lack nurses, doctors, etc. It also means that in cities of 50,000 people there is only one family doctor, because the government has put a cap on how much a doctor can earn. People wait on waiting lists for months and sometimes years to get operations they require, yet they aren't allowed to go to a private facility.

Under the system I described above, some parties would offer universal health care to its members, while a right wing party might say that they won't collect taxes and you can go find whatever health care you want, whenever you want. This would provide for more competition, better service, and people would at least have a choice.

Maybe Canada is a unique case because it is a highly developed nation that has a comparatively large amount of public services and taxes and laws that restrict individuals from existing outside of the public realm.

I just think it isn't fair that someone could live their whole life under a system that they don't want to live under. A socialist can't live the life they want in the United States, same as a Right Wing conservative can't live the life they want in Canada and that's where democracy fails. It's a one size fits all solution to a problem where people aren't generic.

by **nelison** » 6/6/2006, 10:30 am

I'm by no means an anarchist by the way. If anything I would love to see democracy reformed in a way that would work for all, but so far what we've come up with just hasn't cut it.

by **Korzic** » 6/7/2006, 3:36 am

J-Neli wrote:
Korzic wrote:
J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.

There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.

In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.

*boggle* This is no different than what we have today? I pay premiums to have private health insurance, I pay premiums to have car insurance, I pay fees for gym membership and I don't have to pay to belong to any political party, I just vote for whom I best feel represents my views.

But it isn't what we have today. People are still forced to live under the beliefs of others. In Canada people aren't allowed to pay for health care if they so desire. It means that people have to pay taxes and then go to hospitals that lack nurses, doctors, etc. It also means that in cities of 50,000 people there is only one family doctor, because the government has put a cap on how much a doctor can earn. People wait on waiting lists for months and sometimes years to get operations they require, yet they aren't allowed to go to a private facility.

Under the system I described above, some parties would offer universal health care to its members, while a right wing party might say that they won't collect taxes and you can go find whatever health care you want, whenever you want. This would provide for more competition, better service, and people would at least have a choice.

Maybe Canada is a unique case because it is a highly developed nation that has a comparatively large amount of public services and taxes and laws that restrict individuals from existing outside of the public realm.

I just think it isn't fair that someone could live their whole life under a system that they don't want to live under. A socialist can't live the life they want in the United States, same as a Right Wing conservative can't live the life they want in Canada and that's where democracy fails. It's a one size fits all solution to a problem where people aren't generic.

Move here. I seem to be living in the lifestyle you desire.

by **starvingeyes** » 6/9/2006, 12:33 pm

No, I disagree. There are plenty of people out there who would not live harmoniously with you. From hardened criminals to the hard headed. From the rabid of each side of the political spectrum. From those who bullied you at school to those who bully you now (in what ever form). It is impossible, because for each idea that you maintain there is someone who will rail against it. To take an extreme example. There are still certain people who practice cannibalism. Would you live harmoniously amongst them if you were to be their next dinner? Or if not you, what about a family member?

cannibalism, crime and bullying all are dependant on the iniatiation of the use of force. as i stated earlier, i am opposed to this and would be prepared to defend myself.

I think all of you have overlooked what I stated in the very beginning. Anarchy is a paradox. Anarchism is all about the individual. But individuality is what prevents anarchism from ever working.

i think you have overlooked my first post. i never said i was searching for some non-violent utopia. i am more realistic than that.

ClumsyMonkey.net

Self governance debate thinger

Self governance debate thinger

Who is online