tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post113448924148037431..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: A Good Word for LawyersHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134858788397839422005-12-17T17:33:00.000-05:002005-12-17T17:33:00.000-05:00As far as oversight and restictions those are alwa...<I>As far as oversight and restictions those are always overcome and diabused by the corrupt. Certainly I don't need to point out incidents like the rodney king beating to get this point across.</I><BR/><BR/>And your lynch mob will of course never become corrupt.<BR/><BR/><I>Lets be clear here we are talking about establishing anarchism by educating people to have a deep mistrust of organizations and a trust in their own faculties and personal morality.</I><BR/><BR/>You are asking people to ignore that working together for mutual gain is mutually beneficial. Even you acknowledge that voluntary associations are good – so where does a voluntary association end and an organization begin? You may as well be asking people to not be tempted by material possessions – because anyone who is will see that partnering leads to more stuff and will be willing to make the compromises required to get more. You’re starting to sound religious to me.<BR/><BR/><I>Surprised? No, not at all. Society has been established for only one purpose and that is to create a false order. People like order it seems nice. But it's a lie because it's only the surface that is orderly.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is very insightful. I know you won’t like this, but Christians say the same thing. You just cling to the hope that this can be remedied by a solution that is more improbable than what we believe. We both know that your solution will never be implemented, we’re just arguing over whether it would even work if it was – and I’ve got history on my side. You suggest that we functioned for most of time in something similar to anarchy – and yet we ended up in our current state. It couldn’t last – why would you expect that it would the next time around?<BR/><BR/><I>You may have gotten rid of the small family feuds that seemed so bad but in the bargain you got world wars and race riots.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, you are right on target. But what you are really saying here is that there is something fundamentally wrong with mankind, and the only way to control it is to restrict their capability for harm by limiting their social and technological progress. The problem is that this approach doesn’t address the false order within man, and because of this it is highly unlikely that we will be willing to let ourselves be restricted in this way. Your system requires a means of changing our nature – wait, maybe you are religious!Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134772484369031432005-12-16T17:34:00.000-05:002005-12-16T17:34:00.000-05:00He has acepted an authority teling him to kill at ...<I>He has acepted an authority teling him to kill at their command, his conscience is irrelevent to that relationship.</I><BR/><BR/>If you put it that way, what is the difference then between the gun that the lynch mob member uses and a storm trooper (aside from the fact that the storm trooper is way cooler)? He's merely an extension of the force society agrees to apply - a little more impersonal than a lynch mob, but basically the same.<BR/><BR/><I>I'd say you have a very limited knowledge of what riot troops actually do and the real world scenarios in which they have been employed the world over.</I><BR/><BR/>I've been using the term storm trooper to refer to all levels of societal force, primarily the local police. The local cops, detectives, DA's have almost as much lattitude to make decisions as your lynch mob, and have way more oversight/restrictions on them then your group. You may not like how they conduct themselves, but then, I might not like your lynch mob.<BR/><BR/><I>How dangerous would hitler have been without the might of germany behind him? No danger at all.</I><BR/><BR/>This is my biggest complaint about your argument. You assume that Hitler can't happen, apparently because it will never occur to anyone that if they marshal resources they'll have power to get more of what they want.<BR/><BR/>Suppose your lynch mob gets pretty good at dealing with troublemakers. The more they do it, the more confidence and power they have. Next thing you know, you've got Sheriff Hitler causing problems. There's an infinite number of ways for something like this to happen.<BR/><BR/><I>Surely you acknowlege that you are able to quickly process information and various circumstances of an incident in moments when it would take legislators decades to do the same legally.</I><BR/><BR/>These kinds of judgments that you desire are made in the ROL system all the time. To the extent that they are not, all you're saying is that you would prefer the current ROL to be less rigid then it currently is. You want the enforcement arm to have more discretion.<BR/><BR/>Let’s go back for a moment to the lynch mob. You like them because they have discretion. Say you rounded up a posse, but they exercised some discretion and didn’t follow through on the troublemaker to the extent you thought fair. You form a mini-posse and go rough up the troublemaker again. Now the original troublemaker has a grievance against you, and he rounds up a posse and smacks you around a little bit. Are you really that surprised that the societies of the past chose to create institutions to prevent these types of Hatfield v McCoys scenarios from happening?<BR/><BR/>I understand that the current system has issues - guess what, so will yours. People always seem to find a way to be a pain in the behind.<BR/><BR/>Anarchy solves nothing.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134707562594627652005-12-15T23:32:00.000-05:002005-12-15T23:32:00.000-05:00A world of difference. A lynch mob (as ugly as it ...<I>A world of difference. A lynch mob (as ugly as it may be) is violent because they believe violence is called for. A storm trooper is violent because someone else tells them to be.</I><BR/><BR/>The storm trooper believes the same thing as the lynch mob. They're just more professionally trained. Both are guided by societies principles for how to deal with troublemakers - there is little difference in why the force in either scenario is sent.<BR/><BR/><I>Furthermore the members of a lynch mob have a wide variety of options in how to deal with things. But a storm trooper is always a storm trooper. It's their career.</I><BR/><BR/>In the ROL society, you don't call in the storm troopers until they're needed, same as in the AR. And the troopers exercise a lot of judgment on their cases - they're hardly automatons.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm curious what large scale problems have institions ever prevented?</I><BR/><BR/>How would you have stopped Hitler? I know, I know - other institutions created the problem.<BR/><BR/><I>It is no longer an organic internal part of the people involved but becomes static and unchanging.</I><BR/><BR/>What? I suppose we can send all those lawmakers home then. Nothing new to do.<BR/><BR/><I>External enforcement is inevitably seen as unjust and attentuates the mental connection between offense and punishment.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure this is true, but this is not the point. Both systems have enforcement mechanisms that need to be scaled to the level of the trouble they face. The reason the ROL uses the storm troopers is because the threat requires that we go pro and because the rest of us are too lousy and too lazy to form posses. Do you really want to be on ambulance duty at 3am twice/month?Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134677320857499602005-12-15T15:08:00.000-05:002005-12-15T15:08:00.000-05:00Well maybe not you but some members of that commun...<I>Well maybe not you but some members of that community are going to get together and teach the problem maker the facts of life in a rather painful manner. If he doesn't lear then he's going to be forced out and he better hope he can survive on his own. This is how voluntary communities police themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>So what you are saying here is that force is required to uphold the AR of a community, but that it is somehow different than in the ROL community. If it is different, it only a matter of scale. What is the real difference between a lynch mob and storm troopers?<BR/><BR/>The scenario we talked about was relatively small, and you suggested that it could be handled by a loose association. But doesn’t the sophistication of the enforcement need to grow with the level of the problem? You want the level of problems to stay small by eliminating the large institutions that initiate large conflicts, but I don’t see how you can stop them from forming. The cat is out of the bag, and relatively small groups of people have figured out that they have the ability to wreak havoc on a scale that is orders of magnitude higher than it used to be 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago. Lynch mobs are no longer good enough.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, the level of the problem is determined by the ‘goodness’ of the population and the amount of harm a troublemaker can inflict. Institutions, with all of their flaws, are more essential now than ever.<BR/><BR/><I>No there's a difference in how a voluntary community polices itself and how a rol community is policed by others.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I see the ROL as merely an explicit codification of what the AR are and the force that supports it. ROL and AR are the same in the sense that they regulate their communities. Theoretically, the ROL model is superior because it promotes clarity and consistency and fairness - which are all lacking in the AR model. The fact that the ROL model outsources the enforcement is only a difference in implementation and efficiency.<BR/><BR/><I>People have been trained to think of their conscience as subordinate to the RoL for a long time now. We need to undo that.</I><BR/><BR/>It would be interesting to develop this further, because I think we would have some common ground here. But this has been going on a while, and I’d rather finish up by dealing with the fact that force mechanisms are required to support any community system – and that AR and ROL (when adjusting for population size) are virtually identical.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134658225183105192005-12-15T09:50:00.000-05:002005-12-15T09:50:00.000-05:00I certainly agree that people may come to disagree...<I>I certainly agree that people may come to disagreements severe enough that simply walking away isn't an option. I disagree that that somehow justifies having a rule of law.</I><BR/><BR/>Whether a ROL is justified or not does not matter here. What does matter is that left unchecked, the opportunistic person or gang will see that using force is an easy way to get what they want. And some people always seem to want a little bit more.<BR/><BR/>The default position is that force is always present, it is merely restrained by the nature of the person/community that has it. All it takes is one person to push the envelope, and then either the whole community will either turn a blind eye to injustice, cower in fear or find a way to enforce the AR.<BR/><BR/>The only hope for anarchy is that you'll have an entire population composed of really good people. Good luck with that.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134598339328839382005-12-14T17:12:00.000-05:002005-12-14T17:12:00.000-05:00Why are you so focused on security? Not every acce...<I>Why are you so focused on security? Not every accepted rule is there to help protect us. I really don't understand this tangent you are on.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know how well I'm doing it, but I'm trying to make the point that there are instances where the stakes are high enough that you cannot simply walk away from a disagreement and dissolve a voluntary association. I believe that you seriously discount how dependent you are on real force (or really good people) in order to uphold any accepted rules.<BR/><BR/>What do you do if I decide to bully you - beat you up and take your stuff? I'm not playing by the accepted rules, but you're not able to dissolve your association with me.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134590221199188382005-12-14T14:57:00.000-05:002005-12-14T14:57:00.000-05:00UN told US no, but US attacks anyway. The accepte...UN told US no, but US attacks anyway. The accepted rules seems worthless - especially to the member of the association being attacked.<BR/><BR/>(I don't think that I made it clear enough that the person being beaten up was part of the group.)Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134588172997911712005-12-14T14:22:00.000-05:002005-12-14T14:22:00.000-05:00Dissolving the association isn't an enforcement me...<I>Dissolving the association isn't an enforcement mechanism Matt. It's the opposite of an enforcement mechanism. It is a recognition that you disagree and that neither of you can or will try to force the other to agree to your rules.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's say that we have a voluntary association of people, we'll call them UN. Let's say that some of the members, let's call them US, of the association think that another member is threatening them, and wants UN's permission and possibly even their help to go beat him up. UN says no, and tells US not to. But US decides to do it anyway.<BR/><BR/>What happens to the voluntary association and the accepted rules? What good did they do?Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134585696768939082005-12-14T13:41:00.000-05:002005-12-14T13:41:00.000-05:00I should have said a capitalistic economic system ...<I>I should have said a capitalistic economic system provides OPPORTUNITIES for prosperity for everyone and is the only economic system to do so. If people fail to take advantage of these opportunities due to their life's choices, this is their problem. There are limits to what a society OWES to its population in the way of material goods. A humane society essentially owes nothing more to its population than a political/economic structure with educational opportunities and the freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh. My. God. As my Marine buddies say, "Semper Fi, f--- the other guy." Only in a different context.<BR/><BR/><I>Because of THEIR life's choices, not because of the way American society is structured. Furthermore, the USDA data are suspect, based on government accounting policies implemented during the LBJ administration that vastly overstate the poverty problem. For instance, if someone goes without one meal during the day, this is considered "hunger" by the government. American "poverty" is a different beast from the dictionary definition of poverty, which is seen in the rest of the world.</I><BR/><BR/>Sweet baby Jesus cookies on Christmas! In more polite circles, this point of view is termed "Calvinistic." I prefer to think of it as "Neanderthal."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, government data is suspect, because the formulas for calculating poverty are over forty years old and do not take into account regional variances in cost of living. For example, $19,000 for a family of four in Wyoming is vastly different than the same amount for the same number of people in Santa Clara County, California, and yet both must abide by the same figure for assistance eligibility.<BR/><BR/>Capitalism has winners and losers<BR/>, and it is in order to hide this that we have those Horatio Alger myths that anyone can make it. It is a naturally inegalitarian system that tends to concentrate power in one end. This is why capitalism must never be allowed unfettered reign. Capitalism, as you profess it, results in an oligarchy, an economic feudalism if you will. Capitalism with monitoring and a social safety net benefits society as a whole.<BR/><BR/>It's not as simple as "life choices," Buzz. You completely ignore systemic influences.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134584444956185132005-12-14T13:20:00.000-05:002005-12-14T13:20:00.000-05:00On the other hand you kicking me off your lawn is ...<I>On the other hand you kicking me off your lawn is an example of RoL. You own the property and have the wright of the law (and it's heavy handed enforcement methods) behind you. From that position of authority you dictate what will happen. Nothing "accepted" about it.</I><BR/><BR/>Then by that definition, 'accepted rules' has never happened. We are constantly, in very small ways, using force/power in our interactions. As long as we're in agreement, things are fine. But when our voluntary association has a disagreement, one of us may the 'heavy handed' enforcement technique of dissolving the association. Now, if that doesn't appear heavy handed it's only because you've accepted it as a reasonable use of force (given the stakes).<BR/><BR/>That's why I say that anarchy is a fantasy. When the stakes are high enough, we won't agree on the appropriate use of force. One of us won't be satisfied with the other's unilateral decision to 'walk away' from our association - and will act in defiance of the other persons wishes. The only way to prevent that defiance is to use force.<BR/><BR/><I>Let me ask you something, Matt. When you go out with friends to do whatever you and your friends do (see a movie, go bowling, go drinking, whatever) do you immediately set up a heirarchy?</I><BR/><BR/>Every jr high student knows this happens. Each person in the group has a relative level of power. The difference is that the participants usually choose not to live in a legalistic manner that ruins the experience (because the association is more valuable than any minor grievance).Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134576048386776872005-12-14T11:00:00.000-05:002005-12-14T11:00:00.000-05:00Maybe but "accepted rules" and "Rule of Law" are e...<I>Maybe but "accepted rules" and "Rule of Law" are entirely different things.</I><BR/><BR/>Tlaloc, while I'm <I>somewhat</I> sympathetic to the point you make regarding capitalism, I'm not sure I see how there is much difference here between accepted rules (AR) and rule of law (ROL). The ROL is merely a formal codification of the AR of society. Both have an enforcement element, the ROL just provides more clarity (don't laugh) and swifter enforcement (seriously, don't laugh) of the rules.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the ROL is different because it coerces you into accepting rules that you don't like by the threat of force doesn't hold water. Force upholds the AR scenario as well. If I don't want you playing poker on my lawn, you can either leave or I'm going to throw you out.<BR/><BR/>This is why I've never bought into your argument for anarchy. Ultimately, a good society is dependent on those with force being good. There is no vacuum of leadership/power/force. If it is not occupied by good, it will be occupied by something else.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134527695227357652005-12-13T21:34:00.000-05:002005-12-13T21:34:00.000-05:00You know, Tlaloc, I like your "tone of voice" in t...You know, Tlaloc, I like your "tone of voice" in this latest reply. Sounds very honest and real. Just something for the "for what it's worth" department.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134511685898547072005-12-13T17:08:00.000-05:002005-12-13T17:08:00.000-05:00Tlaloc, we've finally hit upon the perfect living ...Tlaloc, we've finally hit upon the perfect living and vocational arrangement for you. You can become a member of a gorilla clan in a protected wildlife preserve! No language and no rule of law, other than "don't piss off the larger apes."Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134511554874363012005-12-13T17:05:00.000-05:002005-12-13T17:05:00.000-05:00Great post, S.T. What a fascinating thing it is t...Great post, S.T. What a fascinating thing it is to contemplate the transformation of China into a nation of laws rather than men. As China and India "mature" (which is a controversial word I know), we will see a great upsurge of prosperity in the world. We will also see a diminished chance of total war. Free and democratic nations do not rush easily into total war with one another.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.com