theloniusfleabag

Dear August1991, Hugo calls this 'enforced robbery', a tax. If one refuses to pay, he will be 'kidnapped' and killed. (If he resists with force). I believe this to be the crux of Hugo's argument, that one does not the have right to 'not participate in society'.The problem would lie in, if Hugo refuses to pay taxes for the 'common good'(or entrance), how does the rest of society deny him access/useage to that which he did not pay for?

Dear Hugo, I seems we are at an impasse regarding the definition of 'ownership'. This is not overly crucial, for every 'state' adheres to some form of recognized 'ownership'. It strikes me as odd, though, that you have no sense of 'society' and social responsibility save what the individual recognizes as directly self-beneficial. However, I have a few questions. Assuming you mean that (Canada, for example) a 'group' of '30 million nations of one' could potentially operate harmoniously, how would there be standardization? Currency, laws governing the safety standards of buildings and bridges, etc. Who would have the right to mint money? Everybody?

Actually, I forgot a fourth outcome, the 'marxist utopian' one. X and Y agree that nobody can own the tree, they can only fight over it, so they agree to share it's benefits equally.

Dear takeanumber, You are correct. France was owed billions, and the oil contracts with Iraq were with TotalFinaElf. Now they are with Halliburton. Iraq was going to trade strictly with the Euro, and possibly devalue the mighty US greenback. Can't have that now, can we?However, The US was just looking out for the US, and look what's become of the mess.

Dear The Terrible Sweal, As you know, I contend that only force is the true method, however, there are 3 possible outcomes. 1. X or Y aquieces and voluntarily cedes 'control' or 'ownership' to the other. 2. X and Y fight over control, and the winner becomes the 'owner' 3. Z shows up, claiming to 'own' the land on which the cherry tree sits, and shoots X and Y for tresspassing. (Or chops down the cherry tree, rendering it valueless, as would be his right under both the 'societal' and Anarchist view of law).

Dear August1991, Indeed, they bet profit vs risk, and hope to come out 'ahead'. (or headed) I have only seen a few human beheadings, and none of hm run around and flap their arms. I wonder why this is so. Studies wer done in medeival times, about the reaction of a severed human head. How long is one conscious? One man 'headed' for the guillotine said he would 'keep one eye open and close the other one' to prove he was 'aware', but failed to do so. Is 'defiance' (Anarchy) the greatest absolute?

Ahhh, jocularity, how I love you so. I hear it's illegal for a PM to go swimming unescorted after one of them drowned(or was eaten). Sadly, they #3 of the 'coalition of the coerced' to invade Iraq.

Dear August1991, France and the UK declared war on Germany based on their treaty obligations to Poland. Since neither the UK nor France was prepared for war, the world first saw the 'Sitzkrieg', the "Armchair War'. Much as we are seeing today. Germany declared war against the US first, according to their treaty obligations to Japan. The US only declared war on Germany, (and Japan) because of direct attacks against the US, and therein lies the crux of 'raison d'etre' of US foreign policy. They only act out of self interest. Always have, always will, because self-interest is the impetus of the 'right wing' (including the extreme of the far right-wing, Anarchy). By the By, one of my arguments against the US 'occupation' of Iraq is that they never formally declared war, yet try to use it's 'international legal clauses' to their own benefit.

Dear Hugo, That is exactly what society is! A long time ago, I had witten something while trying to define the difference between 'biblical' and pragmatic views of society. The teachings of Jesus, etc all boiled down to.... "one must view the world as though there are only 2 people, 'me', and 'the one who is not me'.(Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, etc, even if you view the other brother as jesus, God or Allah). Even your Anarchist theory seems to hold to this.

Dear Hugo, As The Terrible Sweal states, This is akin to what I have stated regarding recognition of your 'right to ownership'. Material possessions are actually of little value, save what people give to them by covetousness. DVD players can't actually keep someone alive, for example. Not according to me, according to everyone else! You use the word 'wrongfully' while I say 'practically'. Besides, how would one establish the 'clean slate' to start this anarchist system? Round everyone up and put them behind some sort of 'starting line' and say GO!? That is how it was done in the west, a cpuple of hundred years ago. Unfortunately, there were 'Injuns' using the land, who had no concept of the word 'ownership' and only by killing them could 'ownership' become possible.

Dear Hugo, Only under an anarchist system. Law governing the six would not cover the 4. They would be 'unclaimed wilderness' (at least the contents of their pockets would be). I was previously going to suggest that an Anarchist system could only work on a 'commune', but you saved me the trouble. Anarchism must be based on greedy selfishness, lest anybody get the crazy notion 'lets share' (access to water, laws, public parks etc) That is where it belongs. The only place one could set up an experimental Anarchist system is Fantasyland! Not true, you are making a personal judgement call based on what you yourself value. Now, not to get nit-picky, but it would depend on the size of the rock. Lets say, Ayers Rock. Coming across it first gives you no more right to it than coming across it second. You can only deny the second man access to it, (assuming your defenses are adequate) and if he defeats and kills you, it is his (to deny access to others). This is the essence of 'ownership' Especially of land, because unlike a small rock, you cannot pick it up and take it with you.

I find it strange that the beheadings are taking place at all. They don't seem to be in keeping with Osama's tenet of offering conversion first (unless it was offered, and refused, which would make the victims 'martyrs'), and indeed, are condemned by the majority of Muslims.

Another interesting thing in the news this morning... "U.S. Rules Out Iraq Women Prisoner Release" , then "Bush hopes Allawi can reassure U.S. voters". These were back to back on 'Yahoo News' this am. The juxtapositioning is telling. In the second line, Allawi is given the 'credibility' to reassure US voters, but in the first line it tells you he has no power in his own country! Mr. Bush might as well use a hand puppet called "Mr. Hat" to reassure the voters. The same goes for Afghanistan, where Mr. Karzai is merely 'the mayor of Kabul'.

Dear August1991, The First Rule of Anarchy is that 'the strong do as they will, the weak submit'. Hugo posted some 'law' by someone which was basically a twist on 'do unto others', yet any 'law' in an anarchist system is an arbitrary one.Suppose 93.5 was the 'All Hebrew, all the Time' radio station, how long before the 'All Nazi, all the Time' station over-rode or blocked the station? Yet Hugo believes this could be prevented by some magical, non-aligned private police force. The police force, under the guidelines of 'free market economy', would work for the highest bidder. I shudder at the implications.

Dear August1991, I'm sure that Hugo will argue that "One must earn one's daily marshmallow", however, toll bridges do not cross private land, rivers are 'unclaimed wilderness'. 'Claiming wilderness' is the Pandora's Box of of the human psyche. Land for public roadways are purchased years (sometimes 20) in advance by the gov't. In theory, the gov't has the power to annex the land if the 'anarchist' won't sell, but it is a mighty rare occurence. Anarchist law would allow for the roadway never being built in the first place.

Dear Hugo, A 'despot' can still practice 'laissez-faire' and not use power unless some societal tenet is breached. As with a gov't. I have a bigger problem wth the waste of my taxation than with the taxation itself. Under anarchy, you propose that there is no such thing as the 'needs' (or rights) of more than one person. In some ways, this is the 'extreme right' of the right wing, something I call 'responsible anarchy'. However, it depends on the 'voluntary' submission to the 'greater good'. (A functioning society). How would a road ever get built? It would be a crazy zig-zag of alternating aquiesence and revolt. There could be no stability. (If I purchased land from another 'anarchist' which had a Highway on it, it would be my right to close access, and another road would have to be built! Madness!) Unless there is some sort of 'Grand High Anarchist Poobah' (or a gov't) to help and defend others against loss from this sort of action, there is either chaos or government.

Dear Slavik44, Amen. It makes you wonder why these victims allow themselves to be taken alive. Perhaps the foreign workers should be the ones with bombs on their belts! I read it a few times, and it got 'no less painful'. Still, you'd be surprised at his occasional brilliance, and equally surprised how many people still believe in the same things he did. Many theories are still espoused by the 'right-wing'. (Not the genocidal ones, of course).

Dear August1991, That would depend on where I was coming from. From 2004, or 1935? In 1935 he was revered, even in the 'west'. The scary part was that he had basically announced his intentions in 1924 in Mein Kampf, but it was too 'flighty' and repetetive for many to read. Even Albert Speer, Hitler's architect cum Armaments Minister, did not deign to read it.

Dear Hugo, You are quite right. Furthermore, I was told a while ago by an Arabic (Sikh) friend of mine, that this was the intentional tactic by the US all along. He told me that there is an old phrase in his culture, "to drop a bucket of popcorn amongst the monkeys". The same tactic is working in Afghanistan.

Dear Hugo, Yes, and they received a delivery of mustard gas for their troubles. Many say 'Saddam gassed his own people' as a sign of his brutality, but fail to acknowledge that 'gasees' were Kurdish separatists, who wished to secede from Iraq by force of arms and take their oilfields with them. That doesn't make the method right, but makes the motive understandable to the west.

Dear Try2Live4God, Does the 'Lord' insist you wear underpants, or does he prefer 'commando'? (Just kidding, I saw this question posed about Satan on an atheist website).The 'Good Lord' allows a lot of things, I suggest you don't accept them all as 'His Will'.

Dear Try2Live4God, It is very difficult to fight from one's knees. A distinct disadvantage if you're actually trying to win. But what if you've got it wrong? What if Muhammed was the last 'Prophet of God'? You're just making Him madder and madder. Dear August1991, I have read a couple of Umberto Eco's books, he is a true 'contemporary genius', if I do say. The character "Brother William of Baskerville" is indeed worthy of emulation, in a pragmatic sense. The insurgency, yes, provoked. The methods, not. But equating the two is a mistake. Did you mean 'as of now', or always?

Dear Hugo, Civic life is different than 'private life'. The purpose of the distinction is that placing boundaries on the actions of 'civil life' is so that 'we should all play nicely together'. In 'Private Life', gov't should still play the 'benevolent dictator, or 'enlightened despot' only to a certain degree. That boundary should be defined by the instant that sphere is compromised by 'touching' others. Sometimes that 'touching' is good, sometimes it's bad. In no way could an anarchist be responsible for defining the boundary, unless they were a hermit, or we face the possibility of having 30 million 'nations of one'. For good or for ill, that definition must be up to the majority. By democratic and gov't enforced means.

Dear Hugo, No, that is the barter system The currency system developed to enable the miller (and the horseshoe maker)to accept a standard, rather than arbitrary, assessment of worth.

Dear takeanumber, I suggest you read "Shake Hands With The Devil" by Gen. Romeo Dallaire. The UN, without the financial and material support of it's member nations, is quite 'physically' powerless. The few countries that would commit troops there were Belgium, Morocco and Canada. The Belgians fired off most of the supplied ammo during training, and refused to replace it. Then they left. The US supplied some rusty surplus APCs that were stripped of all equipment, and then refused to supply troops based on the equation "the life of 1 US soldier = the lives of 80,000 Rwandans". From what I have seen and read, The UN and Annan did what they could, which was admittedly 'diddly squat'(Though not entirely), because most of the member nations weren't interested in helping in any manifest fashion.