[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Sun Jun 23 06:44:42 UTC 2002
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Miller, Jeremy wrote:
> > (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.
Well, much of the philosophy I've been describing borrows heavily from
anarcho-syndicalism.
> > 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.)
A little revolution, now and again, is a healthy thing.
> > 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.
Well, what I intended when I wrote "the more appropriate way of
interpreting that same data" was that their definition of "terrorism"
clearly includes police and military (the use of violence and fear to
coerce a population or modify its behavior) and their special exception
for "illegal tactics" draws an illusory distinction.
> Prison is a terrible thing, but merely a place to put those folks that
> truly cannot determine between right and wrong.
Well, I don't think that's who we have in prison anymore. I think our
prisons are mostly just full of desperate poor people who were born the
wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> > > 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.
Or nothing at all.
> 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".
Your definition is a synthesis of some of the basic tennets of classical
liberalism. Look into it.
Personally, I think that what the mainsteam press calls "Conservative" and
"Liberal" in the United States is just two factions of the same
conservative movement. They differ only in their belief in how best to
maintain the status quo... and many of those differences are being
resolved.
> > (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.
I didn't mean to imply that that isn't what he meant, but I had been
interpreting him as meaning "Any law is null and void..." rather than "All
law...". Does that make sense? We use the word "all" when we mean "any"
quite frequently.
> > 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. :)
Aye.
> > 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? :)
Nor more insane than I am. :)
> > 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.
It's not as hard as the conservatives would have you think. I point again
to Ward's talk at PLUG on WikiWiki Web and how aghast and befuddled folks
were who had been told all their lives that enforced rules kept people in
line (as opposed to the truth: people keep themselves in line and rules
just make them want to see how far they can push things).
> > 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.
I think it's the natural condition and this society beats it out of us.
It took me a LONG time to get my head straight from years of capitalist
training. But once I saw the exploitation inherent in the system, I
started looking for other ways of doing things. I found that the truth
has been staring us in the face all along and that every ancient
philosophy has it right, in some form or another, and they all contradict
the way things are done in this society. Greed, usury, and selfishness
are praised in no cultures but ours and only fairly recently there.
> > 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. :)
You hear it all the time, from both the good and the evil.
To which were you refering?
> > 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.
I glossed over some pretty complex things and I'm not sure I can do them
justice on the spur of the moment, but I'll give it a try.
I'll try to give it backward. First, the last sentence:
"It [a law-based society] allows the loonies to restrict the behavior of
the loving."
By this, I meant that the law is written to keep those who cannot
distinguish right from wrong "in line". And in order to be as internally
consistent and complete as possible (to remove ambiguities), every
situation must have a legal interpretation. For every situation in which
a person who does not know right from wrong can do damage to others, the
law must have an opinion. However, in order to maintain any kind of
pretense of fairness, the law must apply equally to all people.
Therefore, the average person cannot simply act according to his internal
or intellectual compass, but must align himself with the laws of the land.
Jay-walking is my common example. Because the law must choose who is in
the wrong in the case of a mid-street collision between a person and a
vehicle, zones have been designed where one or the other has the "right of
way". Even though a reasonable person can sometimes see quite clearly and
without ambiguity that violating the law is safe and even appropriate and
every other reasonable person would agree, doing so, even if no damage is
done, can be cause for criminal conviction.
Right now, we have laws that are pretty hard and fast. If you do a
particular thing, you've broken the law and the prescribed punishment is
meted out. While some laws give a little leeway for this or that
motivation or situation and some laws allow for paltry sentences, there is
still a rigidity in law that MUST exist in order for it to become anything
other than arbitrary punishment and a haven for favoritism. (We see today
that the more flexible areas of law are the most abused. See country-club
minimum security prisons and sentencing statistics by race or class and on
and on.)
As an example of what I mean above, I'll give you a synopsis of a story I
read as part of the oral history project (an attempt to preserve the life
stories of common people in their own words). This was the story of a
black man who lived his entire life in Seattle, Washington. From the
context of the story, I would guess he was born in about 1915. When he
was a young man, there was a restaurant in Seattle (a chain of three
existed: Seattle, Portland, and Salt Lake City) called Coon-Chicken Inn
from 1929 to the late 1950s. This place used a big black-face minstrel
type as a logo that was fairly offensive and degrading. (Now, you might
say that that was a different time and place, but I think this story shows
that it was offensive and degrading even then.) Anyway, this place gave
out spare tire covers, for whatever reason, with their logo on the back.
This fellow and his friends had a little game/wager where, when they saw
one of these tire covers and had the opportunity, they'd cut out the face
and take it. They had quite a collection, I guess. Anyway, this fellow
was out on the street, running an errand for his boss, when he saw a tire
cover, pulled out his pen knife and went to work. He was caught. The
fellow who owned the car wanted to press every possible charge. The black
man spent the night in jail and went before a judge. The judge listened
to both parties in the case and heard a "guilty" confession. By the
strict letter of the law, the man had, in fact, committed a crime. The
judge had a good laugh and fined the man one dollar for his transgression.
I ask, was justice served? From any side, I think the answer is, "No."
On the one hand, the judge himself was mocking the law and his own
requirement to punish for the conviction. On the other hand, if the law
shouldn't be applied to this kind of protest or jape (depending on your
view), then no conviction should be rendered. It's one of those cases
where right and wrong themselves are kind of fuzzy and relative the law
can't really handle it.
No system of law can be written that mimicks the complex decision-making
that is the evaluation of right and wrong. The flexibility necessary to
do so allows for massive abuse by corruption or effectivelessness by
neglect.
Of course, the same can be said for anything with degrees of freedom and
that's the why we apply the concept of "eternal vigilance".
Law-based society takes the freedom and the requirement for vigilance upon
the magistrates, judges, justices, and police and away from the people.
If it just comes down to a case-by-case judgment call, why bother to
codify anything?
> > 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.
That's why I'm here.
> 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.
It's not just the minds of the people that are against you, though. The
people didn't come to their view on their own. The power structure
encourages and enforces the view of the status quo as good and right.
Who else would invent a system where exploitation and greed are viewed as
positive attributes except those who are greedy and exploit?
While most of the structures that prevent this kind of revolutionary
thought are subtle and complex, when push comes to shove, the tactics of
the powerful become blunt and obvious. (See Cambodia, East Timor, and
Waco.)
> > 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.
All impulse toward sin is natural. That doesn't mean that those impulses
shouldn't be supressed.
And squirrels don't store more nuts than they need.
> (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.)
Building a strong community of reliable, comfortable people that love,
trust, and care for one another is much more likely to provide comfort in
your dotage than the accumulation of money and property.
> 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.)
That's really the point, of course.
> 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.
That's a good point and an important distinction. I should just make a
point of saying, "No, I suppose you can't blame him for wanting, but you
sure can blame him for taking!"
> > 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.
That's another flaw of society, though... this expectation that one must
provide for themself even when they can't provide for themself. It's a
contradiction that excuses the accumulation of wealth and denial of
charity.
> 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.
By "other ways" do you mean non-commercial ways?
I just want to make a point that you don't STOP contributing to society in
your old age, just to commerce.
I think the failure of our society to reward anything but commerce with a
comfortable living should be the biggest red flag that something is
horribly wrong.
It's the same thing with those minimum wage jobs. It is not commercially
viable to provide those services at high wage, but that doesn't mean those
people are not contributing enormous value to society. They are the
exploited and live in poverty and fear for the profits of others.
> Which they most certainly do. There is also having a little extra to
> tide one over through emergencies, injuries, and the like.
And, again, that's what communities are supposed to do. That's why we're
social animals.
> Ah, I write before I finish reading. Not too smart, huh. :)
I do it all the time. You really want to reply to something up at the top
and start to reply before you've read to the bottom.
I think this is another one of those things that's normal and
understandable, but not desirable... though if I had the choice, I'd take
careless mailing list posts over greed and sloth.
> > 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.
Don't you see how this comes down to basing your greed and selfishness on
fear and hopelessness? I think we can do better.
I swear, if society is an organism and culture a consciousness, ours is
manic-depressive. Let's try to get that chin up, ok?
> 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.)
I think that's a rationalization to excuse acting on fear and
hopelessness. A positive future starts with faith in a positive future.
I also think that the reason usury (to pick one example) was considered to
be an "enemy of civilization" (see the four statues representing those
enemies in Prague) is that it is so easily justified and excused in the
short term, but carries inevitable effects in the long term that destroy
equality and concentrate power.
> > 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. :)
Yeah, I'm not sure how that's done, really. Start with yourself and help
EVERYONE. Get rid of the notion of "deserving".
> > 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.
Well, I'm particularly thinking of people who say things like, "I'm not
going to help her, she is big and stong and can help herself!" This is
where selfishness begins and the fabric that holds a sharing society
together starts to unravel.
The only decisions a person has to make in such a situation is whether
they CAN help and whether help is desired.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list