How Civilized People Face Violence & Evil People

[August1991]

Bullies who threatened a new student at their Nova Scotia high school for wearing a pink polo shirt were themselves schooled by two seniors who dressed half the student body in pink two days later, the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax reported.

The newbie, a ninth-grader, showed up in pink Sept. 5 for the first day of class at Central Kings Rural High School and was set upon by a group of six to 10 older teens who called him gay and threatened to beat him up, the paper reported.

The next day, seniors David Shepherd and Travis Price decided to act.

"It's my last year. I've stood around too long and I wanted to do something," David told the newspaper. Travis said he, too, could relate: Growing up, he said, he was picked on for wearing mass-market clothes instead of designer models.

Enlisting as many students as they could online that evening, David and Travis headed to school Friday with a pink basketball, 75 pink tank tops for male students to wear and yards of pink fabric for headbands and armbands. They even persuaded a local retailer to open early so they could buy more.

"Clothes were flying. They were digging to help us find pink shirts," David told the Kings County Register.

They handed out the shirts in the lobby before class: Even the bullied student got one.

"He was all smiles. It was like a big weight had been lifted off his shoulder," David said.

David and Travis figure about half the school's 830 students wore pink.

"The bullies got angry," Travis told the Chronicle-Herald. "One guy was throwing chairs (in the cafeteria). We're glad we got the response we wanted."

LINK

The CBC has a less informative but permanent link.

----

Adolf Hitler was a psychopathic bully who happened to get control of a State. How do we face such people? Despite the American/Ayn Rand ideal of an individual cowboy who swaggers in and protects us all, civilized people cannot defend themselves in such a manner. We have to do it collectively.

The bullies of this world are small in number, perhaps no more than 5% of a given population, but they can create havoc for the rest of us. The violent civil wars of Lebanon, Ireland and Sri Lanka are due to a relatively small number of bullies.

How should civilized people deal with bullies? Well, making everyone a bully (or giving everyone a gun) is no solution. It won't work. The way to deal with bullies is to organize ourselves and fight them collectively. One individual did not defeat Hitler or Stalin. It was organized collective effort.

Alone, a civilized person is inclined to compromise rather than take a risk and confront evil. Civilized people must collectively face individual force.

----

This case in Nova Scotia is interesting in several regards but primarily it makes plain the justification of a democratic government as a form of State. At the same time, it raises the troubling question: what happens if the bullies get control of the State?

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[margrace]

Good example in the US of what happens and we will find out ourselves if Harper ever gets the control he wants.

[DogOnPorch]

They handed out the shirts in the lobby before class: Even the bullied student got one.

Great stuff.

The way to deal with bullies is to organize ourselves and fight them collectively. One individual did not defeat Hitler or Stalin. It was organized collective effort.

Just a historical point here. Stalin was never 'defeated'. He died of old age...holding onto power until the very last moment.

----------------------------------------------------

The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.

---Nikita Khrushchev

[ScottSA]

Adolf Hitler was a psychopathic bully who happened to get control of a State. How do we face such people? Despite the American/Ayn Rand ideal of an individual cowboy who swaggers in and protects us all, civilized people cannot defend themselves in such a manner. We have to do it collectively.

I think you're way out on a limb here. There is absolutely no indication that Hitler's particular pathology had anything at all to do with "bullying," and indeed there is nothing from his childhood to suggest that he was in any way a bully. In fact, quite the opposite. From all accounts he was something of a well-liked loner, and later a well-liked and respected soldier. In fact, his personality seems to have evolved later on, and the inputs seem to have more to do with the adulation he received and the events of him later stepping into his own Fuhrer-myth - originally conceived to describe someone else.

Stalin, along with Saddam Hussien, apparently were bullies, of sorts, at least, but Mao wasn't, and Mao killed more Chinamen than Stalin had Russians to kill. Caligula was a bully, but Napoleon wasn't. Attila might have been but Edward Longshanks and Henry V weren't. In fact, from all appearances, bullying and nasty leadership have nothing to do with each other. There is no correlation.

What you seem to be doing here is elevating "bullying" to the top of the current pantheon of evils by associating it with Hitler and Stalin. Bullying is normal behaviour, usually confined to the schoolyard. So is letting society teach bullies a lesson, which it has done, quite effectively, for generation upon generation. Lots of kids try it (dipping pigtails in inkwells), and until relatively recently it would be dealt with with a birch switch or an after school fight, after which 9/10s of chastened bullies would slink home, never to bully again. It's only now, when immediate society has been made powerless to intervene, that bullying has become something more. Bring back after school fights and stop feminizing society, and we'll damn some stop seeing masculinity driven underground to manifest in this sort of way.

[Michael Hardner]

What you seem to be doing here is elevating "bullying" to the top of the current pantheon of evils by associating it with Hitler and Stalin. Bullying is normal behaviour, usually confined to the schoolyard. So is letting society teach bullies a lesson, which it has done, quite effectively, for generation upon generation. Lots of kids try it (dipping pigtails in inkwells), and until relatively recently it would be dealt with with a birch switch or an after school fight, after which 9/10s of chastened bullies would slink home, never to bully again. It's only now, when immediate society has been made powerless to intervene, that bullying has become something more. Bring back after school fights and stop feminizing society, and we'll damn some

stop seeing masculinity driven underground to manifest in this sort of way.

Scott, you've set your argument in about the 1950s, which is 900 years later than normal for you. Congrats. No Vikings or Goths this time.

While I actually agree with some of what you say, your paragraph assumes that the 'normal' state of affairs involves kids settling it in the schoolyard, which assumes that the 'normal' state for kids to be in is a schoolyard penned in with dozens of other kids. That is one of the problems, and one of the reasons that nanny-ism has risen to comment on the natural aggression that happens with children.

The normal setting in which humans congregate is groups - with adults and children mixed. This is how humans evolved, with tribal elders of high status keeping an uneasy peace between small bouts of individual violence between tribe members of all natural. That is 'natural'. It's not natural to have dozens or hundreds of children jailed together in a yard, watched over by one woman in her 60s.

If we were to go back to a truly natural system of conflict resolution, we'd have to destroy the education system as we know it, which would probably be a good thing.

[Rue]

An interesting post and words August. Thanks.

[Higgly]

I believe I have addressed all of this in my Ode to a Fart.

[Wilber]

What you seem to be doing here is elevating "bullying" to the top of the current pantheon of evils by associating it with Hitler and Stalin. Bullying is normal behaviour, usually confined to the schoolyard. So is letting society teach bullies a lesson, which it has done, quite effectively, for generation upon generation. Lots of kids try it (dipping pigtails in inkwells), and until relatively recently it would be dealt with with a birch switch or an after school fight, after which 9/10s of chastened bullies would slink home, never to bully again. It's only now, when immediate society has been made powerless to intervene, that bullying has become something more. Bring back after school fights and stop feminizing society, and we'll damn some stop seeing masculinity driven underground to manifest in this sort of way.

Good post but I think bullying has changed. Swarming is a recent phenomenon and weapons are often used now where fights were pretty much limited to fists in the past. The consequences for such behavior just aren't there any more. People have gone from fear of being beaten up to fearing for their lives in many cases. Perhaps it shouldn't even be called bullying anymore.

[ScottSA]

Scott, you've set your argument in about the 1950s, which is 900 years later than normal for you. Congrats. No Vikings or Goths this time.

While I actually agree with some of what you say, your paragraph assumes that the 'normal' state of affairs involves kids settling it in the schoolyard, which assumes that the 'normal' state for kids to be in is a schoolyard penned in with dozens of other kids. That is one of the problems, and one of the reasons that nanny-ism has risen to comment on the natural aggression that happens with children.

The normal setting in which humans congregate is groups - with adults and children mixed. This is how humans evolved, with tribal elders of high status keeping an uneasy peace between small bouts of individual violence between tribe members of all natural. That is 'natural'. It's not natural to have dozens or hundreds of children jailed together in a yard, watched over by one woman in her 60s.

If we were to go back to a truly natural system of conflict resolution, we'd have to destroy the education system as we know it, which would probably be a good thing.

Thank you Mikey *patting you on the head* Now trot along.

[Michael Hardner]

Thank you Mikey *patting you on the head* Now trot along.

Scott, sure thing.

Let me know how the debates are going in the playground. I would like the record to show that I will debate my points with anyone, not just those who are easy to defeat.

[ScottSA]

Scott, sure thing.

Let me know how the debates are going in the playground. I would like the record to show that I will debate my points with anyone, not just those who are easy to defeat.

I'll get right on that Mikey.

[August1991]

I think you're way out on a limb here. There is absolutely no indication that Hitler's particular pathology had anything at all to do with "bullying," and indeed there is nothing from his childhood to suggest that he was in any way a bully.

...

Stalin, along with Saddam Hussien, apparently were bullies, of sorts, at least, but Mao wasn't, and Mao killed more Chinamen than Stalin had Russians to kill. Caligula was a bully, but Napoleon wasn't. Attila might have been but Edward Longshanks and Henry V weren't. In fact, from all appearances, bullying and nasty leadership have nothing to do with each other. There is no correlation.

Hitler bullied Germany and then all of Europe. He intimidated in his personal affairs and his regime operated by intimidation. So did Stalin and so did Mao. (As to Mao, I suggest you read this fascinating and readable book.) Napoleon was the origin of the phrase "Napoleon complex" to describe bullies.

What you seem to be doing here is elevating "bullying" to the top of the current pantheon of evils by associating it with Hitler and Stalin.

....

Bullying is normal behaviour, usually confined to the schoolyard. So is letting society teach bullies a lesson, which it has done, quite effectively, for generation upon generation. Lots of kids try it (dipping pigtails in inkwells), and until relatively recently it would be dealt with with a birch switch or an after school fight, after which 9/10s of chastened bullies would slink home, never to bully again. It's only now, when immediate society has been made powerless to intervene, that bullying has become something more. Bring back after school fights and stop feminizing society, and we'll damn some stop seeing masculinity driven underground to manifest in this sort of way.

I fundamentally disagree with you Scott.

Cooperation achieves far more for individuals than competition does. A successful society fosters cooperation - not competition. The trick is to turn opportunistic behaviour into cooperative effort. For example, markets with prices are a sophisticated way to cooperate. Without such techniques, we are left with controlling opportunistic behaviour.

Just a historical point here. Stalin was never 'defeated'. He died of old age...holding onto power until the very last moment.

Good point. I think I meant that we in the West defeated Hitler in WWII and we defeated the Stalinist regime in the Cold War. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are no more. We won. If it's less clear in the case of Stalin (given contemporary politics), it should be obvious in the case of Hitler. No single soldier or person defeated the Nazi regime. One Russian tankman achieved no more than one Canadian airman. Such is collective effort.

Good example in the US of what happens and we will find out ourselves if Harper ever gets the control he wants.

WTF?

I believe I have addressed all of this in my Ode to a Fart.

WTHF?

----

IMV, bullies form a small percentage of any society but they can create great havoc. How do we confront bullies? Not alone. I have faced several times in my life terrible threats of violence. It is terrifying (impossible) to face such threats alone and alone, I invariably fled. Women find this easier to do than men but the result is the same.

Bullies operate by intimidation or extortion. They take what they want through a credible threat. Alone, a normal person will concede to the bully and that's why bullies succeed. The only successful way to confront bullies is for ordinary people to commit to collective action. When I read of this example in Nova Scotia, it struck me as a clear case of what I think.

Hollywood (and Ayn Rand) prefers the lone honest gunslinger who comes into town and shoots the bad guy. At most, post-modern Hollywood entertains the idea that the lone gunslinger isn't so honest. (Rent Who Shot Liberty Valance? this week or next. It goes well with It's A Wonderful Life.)

The idea that millions of individuals somehow together defeated Hitler is too confusing and hard to comprehend. Yet, that's what happened. Similarly, if on a much smaller scale, the article in the OP mentions several names of students who organized the pink T-shirts but who really faced down these bullies?

Edited December 17, 2007 by August1991

[kengs333]

"Bullies who threatened a new student at their Nova Scotia high school for wearing a pink polo shirt were themselves schooled by two seniors who dressed half the student body in pink two days later, the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax reported."

These kinds of things are so lame. I'm wondering if a new student wearing a shirt with an clear Christian message would have received the same support. Probably not. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people wearing the pink shirts would themselves become the bullies. All this is is an attempt to make themselves feel as though they are tolerant and progressive, which, of course, is totally delusional.

[kengs333]

Good point. I think I meant that we in the West defeated Hitler in WWII and we defeated the Stalinist regime in the Cold War. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are no more. We won. If it's less clear in the case of Stalin (given contemporary politics), it should be obvious in the case of Hitler. No single soldier or person defeated the Nazi regime. One Russian tankman achieved no more than one Canadian airman. Such is collective effort.

Here's another history lesson for you. If anyone is responsible for the demise, it's probably Hitler. As ill-advised as his attempt to destroy the Soviet Union was, the fact that the Germans wore down the Russians meant that they were never the threat that they could have been, and I doubt they ever fully recovered from the war. The Nazis also supported independence movements in the Baltic, Balkans and Caucus regions in an effort to destroy the blight of Communism, while the west decided to aid the Soviet Union--this despite strong pre-war anti-Communism sentiments. The Allies were also in a position at the end of the war to deal with the Soviets militarily, and this probably would have ended in victory and all the nonsense of the next 50 years would have been avoided. Strangely, though, despite the fact that Stalin was much more murderous that the Nazis, the west never considered Communism as great of an ideological threat as fascism, and we even still have communist parties around today. Oh, and as for Communism being defeated, things like the environmental and feminist movements drew heavily from Marxism/Communism and these things are still very influential.

[August1991]

These kinds of things are so lame. I'm wondering if a new student wearing a shirt with an clear Christian message would have received the same support. Probably not. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people wearing the pink shirts would themselves become the bullies. All this is is an attempt to make themselves feel as though they are tolerant and progressive, which, of course, is totally delusional.

Your post asks the legitimate question about who organizes "collective" action?

Who has the power of the State?

Here's another history lesson for you. If anyone is responsible for the demise, it's probably Hitler. As ill-advised as his attempt to destroy the Soviet Union was, the fact that the Germans wore down the Russians meant that they were never the threat that they could have been, and I doubt they ever fully recovered from the war.

With that kengs, you have entirely missed the point of this thread. I suggest that you read Tolstoi's War and Peace and reflect particularly on its last section.

History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and put into words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of a single nation, appears impossible.

The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive- the life of a people. They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, and regarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of the whole nation.

The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? the ancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nations to the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man so as to accomplish ends that were predestined.

For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in the direct participation of the Deity in human affairs.

Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

(Second Epilogue.)

If I can so follow Tolstoi, countries don't trade, and countries don't fight wars. Individuals trade and wars are fought by individual soldiers. Russia didn't defeat Germany. Ordinary soldiers from around the world did that, just as ordinary students defeated these bullies in this Nova Scotia high school.

----

Anyway, the Soviet Union collapsed over forty years after the demise of Hitler's regime and almost as much after the death of Stalin. I somehow doubt that WWII played a pivotal role. IMV, it was ordinary Americans and Europeans who, year after year during forty years, made the various small and large sacrifices to stand up to the Soviets. 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives in Vietnam defeating the Soviet regime. It is due to their sacrifice that we can say that we won the Cold War and thankfully, the Soviet Union is no more.

I have no doubt that we will face off this threat of a medieval terrorism in a similar way, if it becomes a serious threat. We in the West have learned over centuries how to fight bullies.

Edited December 17, 2007 by August1991

[blueblood]

Your post asks the legitimate question about who organizes "collective" action?

Who has the power of the State?

With that kengs, you have entirely missed the point of this thread. I suggest that you read Tolstoi's War and Peace and reflect particularly on its last section.

(Second Epilogue.)

If I can so follow Tolstoi, countries don't trade, and countries don't fight wars. Individuals trade and wars are fought by individual soldiers. Russia didn't defeat Germany. Ordinary soldiers from around the world did that, just as ordinary students defeated these bullies in this Nova Scotia high school.

----

Anyway, the Soviet Union collapsed over forty years after the demise of Hitler's regime and almost as much after the death of Stalin. I somehow doubt that WWII played a pivotal role. IMV, it was ordinary Americans and Europeans who, year after year during forty years, made the various small and large sacrifices to stand up to the Soviets. 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives in Vietnam defeating the Soviet regime. It is due to their sacrifice that we can say that we won the Cold War and thankfully, the Soviet Union is no more.

I have no doubt that we will face off this threat of a medieval terrorism in a similar way, if it becomes a serious threat. We in the West have learned over centuries how to fight bullies.

I can see what you mean by standing collectively you can defeat bullies. If the Allies would have done things with your definition of "civility" (wearing pink shirts instead of 20 guys from the school pounding the bully's into submission) would we have defeated the nazi's? I doubt it. The pink shirts were more of an intimidating message, "we are united, if you attack one of us prepare to face the consequences whatever they may be" The bullies were smart enough to realize they couldn't beat up hundreds of kids without getting beat up themselves.

just standing together collectively doesn't beat bullies, it is the threat of violent action and violent action itself that does the trick and the stronger ones always prevail.

[August1991]

If the Allies would have done things with your definition of "civility" (wearing pink shirts instead of 20 guys from the school pounding the bully's into submission) would we have defeated the nazi's? I doubt it.

I doubt it too, Blueblood. But my point extended further than wearing pink shirts.

Bullies are individuals. Civilized individuals confront together a bully.

The pink shirts were more of an intimidating message, "we are united, if you attack one of us prepare to face the consequences whatever they may be" The bullies were smart enough to realize they couldn't beat up hundreds of kids without getting beat up themselves.

just standing together collectively doesn't beat bullies, it is the threat of violent action and violent action itself that does the trick and the stronger ones always prevail.

Blueblood, you can't deal with bullies by wearing pink tshirts, or even threatening violence. I suggest that you watch the movie United 93 to understand what is involved.

In 1943, young Canadian men flew every night over Europe in planes with bombs knowing that they would likely die. Yet, they did it. Why? Because these young men from small towns in Canada knew that they were not alone. Their mates were beside them.

The women and men in United 93 didn't know what would happen and yet they had the courage to do something. It is common to say that young people today lack courage. I disagree. The people on United 93 decided together what to do. They were not alone.

Hitler was a terrifying bully. So too Napoleon and Stalin. In comparison, I frankly think that an Islamofascist Imam is no bully at all and will fold soon enough. These Wahhabites are no Hitler, or Stalin or Spanish Inquistion. They're a medieval Catholic Church five centuries too late. They're not even a Jerry Falwell. They're just two-bit bullies.

When push comes to shove, we'll work together and we'll work together well.

My only fear is that modern technology makes bullies more dangerous.

Edited December 17, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

Hitler bullied Germany and then all of Europe. He intimidated in his personal affairs and his regime operated by intimidation. So did Stalin and so did Mao. (As to Mao, I suggest you read this fascinating and readable book.) Napoleon was the origin of the phrase "Napoleon complex" to describe bullies.

I have read many fascinating books, readable and otherwise (Das Capital and Mein Kampf are far from readable), and you are simply not correct in equating the nemeses of history with "bullying."

Cooperation achieves far more for individuals than competition does. A successful society fosters cooperation - not competition. The trick is to turn opportunistic behaviour into cooperative effort. For example, markets with prices are a sophisticated way to cooperate. Without such techniques, we are left with controlling opportunistic behaviour.

Claiming a Rouseauian stag hunt as a universal truth has got us all in a lot of trouble in the past. Sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not, but claiming it is all the time is damned dangerous; especially if one acts on that assumption.

It's the root of the intl relations "collective action" meme, as well as any number of buggered up scenarios, including 50 some years of eastern European enforced collectivity. In fact, some have argued that Marx's ideation stemmed in part from Rousseau's notions of cooperation, and almost without doubt the early socialists were influenced by him.

Perhaps the most telling example of the failure of this belief is Fukuyama's end of history thesis, which writ large is nothing but a rehash of classical liberal economic theory; the supposition that the system will self-govern as long as the upside of trade regime maintainance is greater than the downside. After the fall of the USSR, there was a resurgence of this idea; that a liberal globalist trade regime would obtain, eventually leading to global democratisation and global economic equilibrium. In fact it's the cornerstone of Bush's strategic doctrine. Like marxian analysis, it all looks really good on paper, but try explaining to a Jihadist that he'd be better off cooperating in a solution to peace that involves giving up 72 virgins and leaving pizza parlours unmolested, or to an Attila the Hun that things would be so much better if he cooperated with the Romans in finding a solution to the angst of the steppes.

Like I said, sometimes cooperation is more effective than competition, but certainly not always; and I would argue that competition is probably more effective in most cases. Against your blanket statement, even one counterexample is needed, and both of us can think of many.

Edited December 17, 2007 by ScottSA

[Oleg Bach]

I have read many fascinating books, readable and otherwise (Das Capital and Mein Kampf are far from readable), and you are simply not correct in equating the nemeses of history with "bullying."

Claiming a Rouseauian stag hunt as a universal truth has got us all in a lot of trouble in the past. Sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not, but claiming it is all the time is damned dangerous; especially if one acts on that assumption.

It's the root of the intl relations "collective action" meme, as well as any number of buggered up scenarios, including 50 some years of eastern European enforced collectivity. In fact, some have argued that Marx's ideation stemmed in part from Rousseau's notions of cooperation, and almost without doubt the early socialists were influenced by him.

Perhaps the most telling example of the failure of this belief is Fukuyama's end of history thesis, which writ large is nothing but a rehash of classical liberal economic theory; the supposition that the system will self-govern as long as the upside of trade regime maintainance is greater than the downside. After the fall of the USSR, there was a resurgence of this idea; that a liberal globalist trade regime would obtain, eventually leading to global democratisation and global economic equilibrium. In fact it's the cornerstone of Bush's strategic doctrine. Like marxian analysis, it all looks really good on paper, but try explaining to a Jihadist that he'd be better off cooperating in a solution to peace that involves giving up 72 virgins and leaving pizza parlours unmolested, or to an Attila the Hun that things would be so much better if he cooperated with the Romans in finding a solution to the angst of the steppes.

Like I said, sometimes cooperation is more effective than competition, but certainly not always; and I would argue that competition is probably more effective in most cases. Against your blanket statement, even one counterexample is needed, and both of us can think of many.

Do not feed them with your emotion. Ignore and do not admire or transphere any power via panderment - do not believe in them - do not be moved - and remember this quote of scripture "Young men you are strong for you have mastered evil" - IN other words understand fully and fearlessly what chaos disorder and evil are - that evil and stupidity are sisters..above all do not re-act to these forces...if you do they will MOVE you - once you are mobilized by evil - it controls you and your job is to control it - and remember also - you are the king and the queen - and as Christ said to you about abmitious mischieve makers - "satan get behind me" - you put that entity in the trunk or in the back seat and say "I am driving the car so F off" - why would you let a mischievious overly ambitious nasty 10 year old boy drive the car to destruction? You are in power - and you must believe that - when evil and stupidy sense that - they flees - and love the little minion bastards - LOVE THEM TO DEATH- you can not change an evil person - if you try you will only educate them and create smarter evil people - that you will have to deal with later - do not feed the nasties - keep them in a gage and do not partake in evil for sport - there are better things to do.

[ScottSA]

Alcan up 3 points today.

[Oleg Bach]

Alcan up 3 points today.

Better go out and collect some aluminuim scrap! Wonder what copper is doing? So what's your point? Frankly this rise in pointage for Alcan means nothing - but if you want to run about like a nut and talk to your broker go head - but to no avail - just like gas prices - up and down and down and up - all to humilitate and stress out the sheeple - oil companies love to harrass the average hockey mom to death - a stressed population is very very easy to rule - the beasty boys love it if we are frazzled - seeing they do not really have the intelligence to rule intelligently - so harrassement of the consumer in crafty ways is standard practice - personally I am up 20 points in my valule - but am no up for sale and will never go public - privacy wards off evil also - but with the net - we open the door to more hot poop to slide in and call it wealth - Privacey creates privledge from the overly privledged. Fight fire with fire and be like a Catholic priest - who knows all but says nothing - code of quietness...would be a good idea - the less the beasty boys know about your buisness personal and other - the more porsperious you will be - if they know you to well - they will impoverish you just for fun.

[Don Cherry]

So they called a gay guy gay and threatened to beat him up. Come on what did this guy expect to happen?

What would happen to me if I went to North Preston NS, Lower East Side Vancouver or some other leftest district and held up a big sign saying I thought Preston Manning was the greatest Canadian in history?

The trouble with Nova Scotia is that all the ones with sense and gumption have already moved to Alberta and mostly whats left down east are the Looney Left.

Anyway as you might have guessed im a homophobe. They scare the hel.l out of me. Its scary stuff what there doing in some public schools. At the very least when you give kids books like Jimmy has two dads well no darn wonder they dont want to read. Then there is gay marriage. People will be marrying barnyard animals next.

Then they are going out and adopting children just to prove a point.

Plus its these same homo groups like the aclu who are going around from town to town threatening them with lawsuits if they dont take down there Christmas displays.

Anyway if you say anything about it your a Nazi which is quite funny when you think about it because its the PC crowd who is always hollering for tolerence but yet they have no tolerence for anyone who doesnt agree with them.

Ever read "America the gay"? I would post it but I would probable be arrested for some type of a hate law. Anyway if thats what is going on in certain parts of the States then its only a matter of time before it happens up here.

[guyser]

So they called a gay guy gay and threatened to beat him up. Come on what did this guy expect to .....probable be arrested for some type of a hate law. Anyway if thats what is going on in certain parts of the States then its only a matter of time before it happens up here.

Sarcasm...satire ? .....not sure which.

[Oleg Bach]

Sarcasm...satire ? .....not sure which.

As the kids would say "That's soooo gay" - even our less than bright puppies realize that the "life style" is not the optimum way to go - wonder if all the kids who believe that gays are not equal to the breeding population should be charged with hate crimes - we could toss a millioin 16 year olds into prison for offending the gay population - with "that is so gay"

[August1991]

I have read many fascinating books, readable and otherwise (Das Capital and Mein Kampf are far from readable), and you are simply not correct in equating the nemeses of history with "bullying."

Hitler was a bully and if more Europeans had stood up to him earlier, then much tragedy could have been avoided.

Am I wrong to say that?

Claiming a Rouseauian stag hunt as a universal truth has got us all in a lot of trouble in the past. Sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not, but claiming it is all the time is damned dangerous; especially if one acts on that assumption.

It's the root of the intl relations "collective action" meme, as well as any number of buggered up scenarios, including 50 some years of eastern European enforced collectivity. In fact, some have argued that Marx's ideation stemmed in part from Rousseau's notions of cooperation, and almost without doubt the early socialists were influenced by him.

Perhaps the most telling example of the failure of this belief is Fukuyama's end of history thesis, which writ large is nothing but a rehash of classical liberal economic theory; the supposition that the system will self-govern as long as the upside of trade regime maintainance is greater than the downside. After the fall of the USSR, there was a resurgence of this idea; that a liberal globalist trade regime would obtain, eventually leading to global democratisation and global economic equilibrium. In fact it's the cornerstone of Bush's strategic doctrine. Like marxian analysis, it all looks really good on paper, but try explaining to a Jihadist that he'd be better off cooperating in a solution to peace that involves giving up 72 virgins and leaving pizza parlours unmolested, or to an Attila the Hun that things would be so much better if he cooperated with the Romans in finding a solution to the angst of the steppes.

Like I said, sometimes cooperation is more effective than competition, but certainly not always; and I would argue that competition is probably more effective in most cases. Against your blanket statement, even one counterexample is needed, and both of us can think of many.

I have always considered the stag hunt as a variation on the prisoner's dilemma and both are tremendous simplifications only useful to understand the problem. In the real world with market prices, there are no such games or strategies because millions of players are involved.

I think also that the key idea in cooperation is that it is voluntary. Involuntary cooperation is an oxymoron.

It is hard to disagree with a policy or system where individuals are free to choose among a series of actions and their choice leads to the best choice for others. IOW, there is no wasted or lost potential. When it is in my interest to do something and it is also in your interest to do the same thing, then, as they say, we have an alignment of interests.

But as they also say, it is always better to be outside a cartel than inside one. IOW, it's always better to cheat. And that's where bullies come in.

Bullies and cheaters will be with us always. It is how we deal with them that matters. Markets deal with cheaters well because markets turn them into a benefit for the rest of us. Cheaters break up cartels.

When markets don't work - and that happens often, despite what Fukuyama may have thought - then we're left with bullies and cheaters and no way to keep them in line. My point in the OP was to post a simple example of how civilized people do that. (So, I wasn't imagining that Attila the Hun would suddenly become a cooperative soul. I was wondering how to deal with him. Indeed, I suspect that we're all Little Attilas at heart and so we're all bullies in a way.)

----

Let me return to this voluntary idea. When relations are voluntary (ie. a market setting), then the nice guy has the advantage. Who would choose voluntarily to deal with a bully? But when relations are involuntary (ie. a bureaucracy, international relations), the tough guy has the upper hand. He gets his way since the meek and mild run away.

So, how can the meek and mild deal with bullies in involuntary relations? They join together. Most of military training amounts to reassuring a soldier that he is not alone. His buddies will back him up.

Edited December 18, 2007 by August1991