The Specials

[Vortex]

Thanks for the update Bozzio.

Don't we live in interesting times?

[DominicJ]

Yet again, I'm amazed by peoples shock that the state doesnt have their best interests at heart.

[Vortex]

Yet again, I'm amazed by peoples shock that the state doesn't have their best interests at heart.

True .. although I don't think that the state is especially evil either.

Most of the time it is simply Civil Servants doing what is thought 'best' for stability or what is 'right' for the country.

All those 'nasty' & bullying Inland Revenue or Local Council staff are unlikely to be evil ... they really DO think they are making the world a better place.

It's a shame that they can't take a step back sometimes and take a look at their own behaviour.

[2 As and a B]

It's a difficult balance isn't it, between keeping order (preventing chaos) and preserving the current rulers in power.

Some form of government is necessary, I accept. It is the remoteness and unaccountability of government to the people that elect them that sticks in the gullet. Interesting Dispatches programme last night on MPs expenses and lobbyists' money BTW - corrupt ba$tards! - The Westminster Gravy Train.

[DominicJ]

True .. although I don't think that the state is especially evil either.

I dont think anyone looks in the mirror and thinks, good god I'm evil.

Its simply a case of the ends justify the means.
The civil service has the countries best interests at heart, so whats good for the civil service is good for the country, and if they have to lock us all up and shoot dissenters, well, that must be whats best.

The state is far more likely to step on us, crush us and not even notice than activly try and do us harm.
I personaly dont find that reassuring, which is why I'm always and everywhere for a smaller state.

[PS_RalphW]

Its simply a case of the ends justify the means.
The civil service has the countries best interests at heart, so whats good for the civil service is good for the country, and if they have to lock us all up and shoot dissenters, well, that must be whats best.

The state is far more likely to step on us, crush us and not even notice than activly try and do us harm.
I personaly dont find that reassuring, which is why I'm always and everywhere for a smaller state.

Who is to say that the "state" should not have priority over the rights of the individual?

The concept of "human rights" is a very modern one - evolved out of the (?) reformation period of modern history. In many societies - eg. china, the individual has always been subservient to the system, be it the Emperor or the Chairman. Many religions eg. Bhuddism and Confucianism play down the individual and teach acceptance of the system either because it is right or irrelevant to deeper reality.

Individual freedom is probably a luxury that is hard to afford in an energy /resource constrained world.

The problem is not that there is order imposed from above, but whose order it is. The idea behind 'modern' democracy was to have at least three separate streams of authority (politics, police, judiciary etc) so that they played 'rock paper scissors' amongst themselves to stop any one getting too much control. Of course all systems of control get subverted, ours is largely controlled by multinationals now who have redefined the rules in their own favour. All the more reason to allow popular protest to be another stream of influence, even if 'popular' and 'right' are uncorrelated.

The problem we currently face is that our leadership is not only increasingly authoritarian, but also fundamentally misguided in attempting to sustain business as usual when faced with Tainteresque collapse. Do we fight the system to reform it, or to sabotage it and accelerate it's collapse, or simply to gain independence from it, and set up a more sustainable 'rival' system? Orlov would recommend simply opting out as much as possible. Ignore the system and live as quietly as possible whilst waiting for collapse. Think mammals in the shadow of dinosaurs.

Humans evolved to see the political world as allegiance to family and/or tribal leader, and opposition or alliance to neighbouring tribes. Beyond that, we cannot rely on instinct, we need to resort to reason.

We have never been very good at that.

[DominicJ]

Your argument defeats itself.

The state has, as you acknowledge, become subverted by interests that are not our own.
So your solution is to give even more power to those interests that subverted it?

You accept the current system is flawed, because it suits others but not you, but seem to have cured it by making the system suit you and not others.

Who is to say that the "state" should not have priority over the rights of the individual?

Me

[PS_RalphW]

Then why are you not an anarchist?

You believe in markets, that implies a tradable currency and rules and regulations, and recognition of trading organisations as having rights. Somebody has to write and maintain those rules. That is part of a 'state' organisation however you dress it up.

You believe in ownership rights for individuals and (I suspect) organisations, that requires a police force and a judiciary.

Who writes the rules? If you have a system where the largest organisations have the largest influence in writing the rules, you get rules that give the largest organisations the most power, and that leads to them getting ever bigger.

Anyway, I did not have an argument, the comment was in the form of an observation. Medieval agriculture was largely based on common ownership of land, and at various periods this led to relatively equitable and prosperous societies, even allowing for the feudal overlords. The key has always been to balance the influence of the competing factions. The modern 'democratic' state is only one of many fundamentally different ways of organising societies.

There is no 'right' way of organising large societies. Human nature has not evolved to handle them, yet they are largely self-organisating, human nature also abhors a (power) vacuum.

We need to plan for what society we want in the future. We would be foolish to limit ourselves to options that have already got us into a major pickle.

[DominicJ]

Then why are you not an anarchist?

Because I shower, so I'm a libertarian.

You believe in markets, that implies a tradable currency and rules and regulations, and recognition of trading organisations as having rights. Somebody has to write and maintain those rules. That is part of a 'state' organisation however you dress it up.

I disagree, a tradeable currency is whatever two parties agree to exchange, that can be government paper, government gold, gold or onions.
Rules and regulations can be set by whoever is running the market, and people are free to abide by them, or go to a different market.

You believe in ownership rights for individuals and (I suspect) organisations, that requires a police force and a judiciary.

Indeed it does, I dont follow your point? A police force and judiciary that exists to protect the right iof consent has little to do with a state that exists to over ride it.

Who writes the rules? If you have a system where the largest organisations have the largest influence in writing the rules, you get rules that give the largest organisations the most power, and that leads to them getting ever bigger.

Thats your system, big organisations use the state to hamper their competitors.

There is no 'right' way of organising large societies. Human nature has not evolved to handle them, yet they are largely self-organisating, human nature also abhors a (power) vacuum.

I'm pretty sure thats what I'm arguing for and your against.

We need to plan for what society we want in the future. We would be foolish to limit ourselves to options that have already got us into a major pickle.

Society needs to be planned? I thought it was self organising? Society is far too complex to be planned.
I made a honey roasted pork leg yesterday, there were at least 20 honeys, which was the right one?
Or should it have been mustard roasted pork belly?
The scientific/rational society doesnt work because there are 65m individual people in the UK, all of whom make thousands of decisions everyday, acting on different information and with differing goals

I'm the one who wants the least limit here, "you can do whatever the hell you like as long as everyone involved consents".
It is you who wants to enforce the same way of life on everyone, or limit the permissable way of life to a very small spectrum.

[gug]

Then why are you not an anarchist?

Because I shower, so I'm a libertarian.

You're a to**er, but that doesnt mean you vote labour.


Me? i'm a human being.


Edited to add: sorry folks. Dj's grinding dull arrogance gets up my (unpierced) nose.

[2 As and a B]

DJ is, and I suspect always will be, arrogant and ignorant. Well the two go together don't they.

[biffvernon]

Before we wander too far off, remember that the issue here is should the police be allowed to hit people who are doing no harm.

[Bandidoz]

The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was formed in 1965 to provide a centrally based mobile squad for combating particularly serious crime and other policing issues which could not be dealt with by local police.

Wasn't the SPG a hamster on The Young Ones?

[DominicJ]

Fine then, I'll answer seriously, Anarchists only usualy pop up during the mayday bank holiday, when they run around beating up the 12 year old who was on the till at Mcdonalds.
Anarchists are thugs who get off on imposing their will on others through force. They dont like "the system", so regardless of what anyone else wants, ineffectualy try and destroy it.
Maybe there was a plan once, now its just thuggery.

Me?
I have no wish to impose my will on anyone, and just want no one to be able to impose their will on me.

Or I could just brush it off with a joke because its off topic, I'm fine with either.

[biffvernon]

Anarchists are thugs who get off on imposing their will on others through force.

Some of us anarchists might find that comment offensive. You might start your education on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist, from which I take

The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers" from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein).

The degree to which political systems move away from anarchy may be regarded as a measure of failure of the human condition.