[PLUG] PLUG meeting

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 9 Dec 2002, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 03:45, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > A civil anarchy would please everyone but those who would like to wield
> > power over others.
> 
> And in this ideal anarchy, what is to prevent the unscrupulous from
> taking advantage of others?  What will enforce their civility?

I mentioned that later in my message.  There is no way to stop people from
abusing an imbalance of power without imposing an imbalance of power.  One
can only rely upon the belief that if you feel as though there is an
imbalance of power in a relationship, you can reach out to your neighbors
to help you restore the balance.

"Crimes" of property are easily remedied (and even prevented) in a world
of abundance.  The real threats are grand crimes of overt power exersion
(claiming control of land and property you cannot use personally to create
artificial scarcity) and crimes of passion.  The former is practically the
definitionof "law enforcement".  The latter cannot be prevented by "law
enforcement" anyway.

> There MUST be law and law enforcement.  It's an inevitable conclusion.  
> The question is then what should those laws be and what may they
> regulate.

I don't see how you're coming to such an absolute certainty about that.

"Law enforcement", historically and consistently, only enforces property
relations (which is what allows some to have very much while others have
very little) and crushes dissent (which is anti-democratic) through
violence, fear, and intimidation.

> To me, anarchy and chaos are somewhat synonomous.

How can someone who has seen the results in Free Software development and
adoption hold this view?

People are, by their nature, orderly.  They are cooperative and kind.  
They only deviate from this norm when they are deprived of some necessity
or mentally ill.  Neither the deprived nor the ill benefit punishment.  
They need care and love and an understanding of and reason to believe in
their inherent equality with other people.

> > > There has to be law, order, and coordination of efforts, but there's a
> > > limit to what a government can (not should) practically regulate.
> > 
> > I'd disagree that there _has to be_ law.  I think order is a side-effect
> > of the coordination of efforts that is natural in humanity.
> 
> The coordination of effort cannot happen without process of law;
> parlimentary procedure in committee to actually perform the planning
> and decision making itself.

Pretty much anything short of consensus becomes tyrannical.  
Decision-making should always be left in the hands of those most effected
by the decisions.

If a person doesn't agree with a decision, they're not going to abide by
it.  If a person consistently disagrees with the decisions that effect
them, they will become a rebel and work to destroy the decision-making
process.  The goal is to stop rebellion before it happens by pleasing
everyone as much as possible.

In a world without tyranny and inequality, there is no way to impose
decisions on a person who does not agree.

> > To me, government (as an organization) exists only as the agency of the
> > people.  It is not the role of government to regulate, but to be
> > regulated.  It is the responsibility of people to regulate themselves.
> 
> Well, that is democracy.

Yes, it is.

> Democracy and capitalism are not related.  There is no reason why we
> cannot have both democracy and socialism.  Though it would be silly
> for the government to run every little small business...

When you say "the government" you really mean "the state", right?

There would be government in each and every little small business, but
that just means that it would be governed by the people who are effected
by its operation (and the people would govern themselves individually).  
Far as I can tell, there is no reason for the creation of a State in a
civil society.  The state serves only to consolidate power (perhaps
derived from the people) and wield it against those who dissent.

Interesting that the bits about "Homeland Security" were left out of this
message... but I'm not through reading all my new messages yet.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org