[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Fri Jun 21 18:27:50 UTC 2002


> > The only thing I might be uncomfortable with is if you went further
> > and stated that the responsibility of actually meeting 
> those needs was
> > mandatory and codified into law.  But you didn't say that.
> 
> I wouldn't EVER say that.

Cool.

>  (Wow, you really DON'T know anything about
> anarchism, do you?)

Huh?  I wasn't aware that I was referring to anarchism here at all.

I wouldn't say I don't know ANYTHING about it.  I'm no expert, nor do I know
a LOT about it, but I do some.  (I know I did mentioned it passing within
another post... I haven't answered your reply yet.)


> I would say, however, that a person who is hoarding might well be held
> accountable for his greed by the teeming masses that go without.  This
> would be the physical manifestation of "eternal vigilance".

True.  And I might call that manifestation "revolution", which is a big part
of how we got started here.  (They're usually pretty bloody.  And
unpredictable.  With unexpected results, even when the masses are
victorious.  But alas, sometimes there is no alternative.  I believe that
some have been accomplished peacefully, but the majority unfortunately have
not.)


> > I think people should do it because it is the Right Thing.
> 
> I believe that law exists to catch the folks that truly 
> cannot determine
> right from wrong.  It is coercion and a last resort.

Agreed.

> It's no coincidence that the municipal police, U.S. military 
> and Justice
> Department all meet the USA Patriot Act's definition of "terrorist
> organization" without the special exception for ILLEGAL 
> coercive tactics.

And I've got you there.  I also have some issues with many aspects of that
act.  (And believe calling it "Patriot" is a bit of a slap in the face to
top it off.)

> You see, the police have the legal authority to use those tactics, so
> they're somehow not terrorists.
> 
> I think the more appropriate way of interpreting that same 
> data is that
> the police and prisons are merely LEGAL terrorist organizations.

I differ there a bit.  The purpose of the police is not to terrorize, nor to
use tactics that meet the definition of "terrorist".  (The dictionary
definition, not our new legal definition.)  If that is what they are doing,
then something definitely needs corrected and put back in place.

Prison is a terrible thing, but merely a place to put those folks that truly
cannot determine between right and wrong.  Because we don't seem to really
know what we should do with them after catching them, nor what to do about
keeping them from doing "bad things".  There is rehab and education, but
sometimes that doesn't work.  There's Clockwork Orange, but I can't see any
way how that is a good thing.  We don't know the real solution to this
problem, and so far prison is just one of our temporary solutions.  (That
we're only recently looking beyond.)


> > I worry that if we tried to codify every Right Thing people 
> should do
> > into mandatory law, we'd have a real mess.
> 
> The Right Thing is soft, not hard.  Real life is too complex 
> to codify.  

Agreed, and this is the best reason to codify as little as neccessary.

You gave a definition of conservative earlier, something along the lines of
"one who wants little change, and the status quo."  I think of it more as
"one who is conservative about what powers should be given to the
government, as opposed to reserved for individual people".  Maybe not
directly related, but food for thought.  (And something some conservatives
seem to forget themselves when it is convenient.)

> (One could even argue that this is a justification for Jeff's 
> statement
> "All law is null and void for vagueness".)

Perhaps that really is what he meant, and you've finally found somewhat
common ground?  Whoah.


> However, if you don't do the Right Thing, I think your 
> neighbors should
> have some way of showing you.

Sure.  (Currently they call the cops and try to get them thrown in jail.
But I know that's not what you mean, nor really the best solution. :)


> Jeremy, I highly recommend you read a book that I think I've already
> recommended in this thread.  It's called The Dispossessed.  I 
> was about in your position (knowing that right and wrong cannot be put 
> into law, but not willing to accept lawlessness) when I read it and it
allowed me to
> understand what life could be like, given a society that 
> allowed for the true equal treatment of all people.  No police, no locks.


Perhaps I will.  Thanks.  Promise it won't make me insane? :)


> And if we do
> our best to keep our eyes on the prize (the betterment of all 
> mankind), we
> don't fall into barbarism.

Ah, there's the rub.  The hard part.


> People who do damage to others always justify it through the good they
> believe they're doing for themselves or some third set.  If you stop
> making the distinction between this group and that group; 
> yours, theirs,
> and others, you come to a condition where you can see the big 
> picture:  
> Help yourself only as much as you help others.  Help others 
> only as much
> as you help yourself.  This is truly the method for 
> maximizing the benefit
> to all.

If everyone played along, it might work.  Again, that's the hard part.

> People who do damage to themselves are sick.  When you share 
> the belief
> that all people are truly created equal, then damage to one 
> is damage to
> all.  Hate, greed, and violence become self-damage and can be 
> recognized
> as sickness.

I've heard something like that before. :)



> There is a small set of people who are insane or sociopathic. 
>  Their needs
> simply cannot be met with caring and understanding.  I think 
> it's better
> to build a world where the exceptions are dealt with 
> case-by-case than a
> world that structures the entire social order around minimizing their
> impact.  This is essentially what a law-based society does.  
> It allows the
> loonies to restrict the behavior of the loving.

Not sure I follow this bit here.  More precisely, an explanation supporting
that we do not currently deal with them on a case by case basis, and how it
is would be impossible to acheive it within a law-based society.  Then I
might understand what you mean better.

> > And how can anyone show generosity or caring, if they have no choice
> > about whether they do it or not? :)
> 
> I'm with you, sir.  Right beside you.

Cool.

> At the same time, how can you be generous when your society 
> views giving
> as a sucker's game?

By ignoring the societal view, and demonstrating otherwise.  Eventually
enough others may catch on.  (Yes, this has the same limitations of
requiring others to play along.  But I don't think it takes as much of a
majority to turn the tables of this view.)

It is just a perpetuated societal view, and might not be as difficult to
change as the structure that contains it would be.


> Here's a little exercise, keep an ear out for the following 
> phrase (and
> phrases equivalent):
> You can't blame him for wanting a little more for himself.
>
> I hear this all the time and I make it a point of asking, "Why not?"

You can blame someone for anything.

But maybe I won't blame him just for wanting.  I think it can be a natural
impulse... I think of it as being like pack-rat, or a squirrel storing more
nuts than it needs.  Perhaps because it doesn't know when the nuts are going
to run out, or how many it will need to tide itself over till the end of a
winter season.  (Note: That excuse can only be entertained for those that
happen to currently have what they need, but haven't amassed so much that
they've fulfilled their needs for their entire lifetime or more.)

I might blame for acting on that want, depending on circumstances.  (As a
combination of lacking self-control, and lacking respect for the needs of
others.)


> Oftentimes, I hear the phrase on the radio or television and 
> I don't get a
> response (for obvious reasons).

:)

>  But I'm sensitive to the 
> phrase, so I've
> come to realize how often this kind of statement is reiterated in our
> society.  It's laid out without reason or rationale.  It's 
> just pasted on
> as if it's a totally normal, good thing to want more more 
> more.

I'd say that being considered "normal", or "understandable" doesn't
neccessarily mean acceptance of something as "good".  (Well, outside of some
circles, anyway.)  Jealosy, hunger, anger, and a whole slew of other human
emotions/drives/states are pretty normal... understandable... but not
desirable.

>  I never
> let it slide without asking for a good reason why not.

I like that.

> People look at me funny, at first.

:)

>  Then I ask again, "Why 
> can't you blame
> them for their avarice and greed?  Did they not already have 
> a pretty good
> life?"

:)

> That's usually enough to get people thinking.  Sometimes a 
> conversation
> ensues and the person almost always comes to this little 
> justification for
> greed, "Well, you make more than you need now so you can stop working
> later."
> So greed is, apparently, justified by sloth.  Nice one.

Maybe not that far.  Need to collect a little more than one currently uses
might be justified by the fact that people age, and become less capable of
providing for themselves over time.  At some point they can't, and having
something put away for that time will allow them to continue contributing to
society in other ways.  Which they most certainly do.  There is also having
a little extra to tide one over through emergencies, injuries, and the like.

I'm not sure you are arguing against this stuff really, and might classify
them as "needs".  For some this might be what they are referring to, and as
such not exactly "sloth".

But for some, it likely is what you suspect.  :(


> I believe in honoring those who came before us and those who will come
> after us.  We do the latter by caring for our young before they can
> contribute to meeting the world's needs on their own.  We 
> should do the
> former in the exact same way.  There's no reason for a person 
> to have to
> save up for their own retirement just as there is no reason you should
> have to save up to pay back your parents for your rearing.  It's a
> cycle.  Forget them and us and the young and the old, care 
> for all people
> all the time.

Ah, I write before I finish reading.  Not too smart, huh. :)


> Is this person too sick to take care of themself?  I submit that it
> doesn't matter, you should help make sure their needs are met 
> regardless
> of their health, age, race, virtue, or enthusiasm.

Yes this should be true, but all to often isn't.  Based on that fact, I
won't blame one for trying to cover those periods themselves.  just in case
the world is still a cruel place and no one steps up to help.  If it turns
out to be unneccessary, they can turn and put it to good use when that
becomes known.

I don't think doing that is incompatible with your overall aim, or that it
should prevent a person from trying to help others.  (It just classifies
something as a potential need to be fulfilled, to be used if necessary and
converted to "unneeded" if not.)

>  Stop drawing lines
> between people and just pitch in and make things better.

Or spend a little time trying to erase the lines people have drawn between
themselves.  :)

> The effort you spend determining who deserves help is effort you could
> have spent helping.

Good.

But I don't think it should take long enough to decide to make a much
difference.






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list