ForumGarden

With regard to Spots post on whether Libya is a better place now than it was when Gaddafi ruled the roost, I'd like to ask whether Dictatorships are necessary for some societies.

Is Anarchy a natural path for those who have endured the oppression of the "Jackboot"

I ask because I read this from Steven Pinker, a Canadian psychologist

" Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate "

Are we destined always to live in a society where we are " adjudicated by armed authority ".

What is the future ? Are we civilised enough to live under some form of anarchist political system

I wish....

Only, I suspect, if we kill all the Murdochs, Diamonds and their ilk. At which point we're probably in violent chaos.

This might provoke relevant thought and comment.

BBC News - A Point Of View: The trouble with freedom

Thats an interesting article. I'd never given it thought before that freedom and democracy don't necessarily go hand in hand. As a sentient being, my freedom is far more important to me than anything. It's innate in us all, I'm sure.

I'm still not sure of an answer. Whether some liberal anarchy can propose such a solution but then that brings us back to the issue of "adjudication by armed authority" and its obvious success in reducing violence in society. I really don't know enough about the whole subject and certainly don't have the language to express some of the ways that I feel. They wallow about my head, fighting for a way out.

What we don't want is the greatest good (for an agreed definition of good) of the greatest number because that has no constraint demanding justice for all. A satisfied majority can be shockingly unjust to a minority it perceives as repulsive, whether they be Jewish or queer or non-Christian (to take recent examples).

Freedom is a relative thing.

To enjoy complete freedom, one must be free of the limitations of society. This would require him to live in a region were no other people can be found.

The other option is to be immersed in a society where no one cares about him, and he simply goes about his business.

Extreme positions make bad examples. If you start from the centre and work toward the edges you can see what goes down as the other comes up.

We probably only realise what our freedoms are when they are taken away from us or are denied us. We may agree that we would like to minimise our governments interference in our lives but to what extent. How do we decide what is a reasonable law passed by the Government as opposed to an infringement on our lives.

We have Natural Law. Is it necessary to add to that for society to run smoothly. Most laws that have been added are not criminal laws but of a type which raises revenue. Is this a step too far ?

It seems to me the ideal would be to eventually include everyone as a member of the majority. The question is, as I see it, how to accomplish that. Either by slow steady negotiation or through a sharper legislative process. I'd think the two should theoretically work hand in hand.

BTW, thanks for the BBC article - it was informative.

Well, as a liberal (a slightly odd one, admittedly, but a liberal nonetheless) I am in favour of considerable freedom of the individual. I do not think we should legislate on things like seatbelts for example - if you want to be stupid, go ahead. I think basically as long as it doesn't hurt others you should be allowed to do it.

Clodhopper;1402124 wrote: Well, as a liberal (a slightly odd one, admittedly, but a liberal nonetheless) I am in favour of considerable freedom of the individual. I do not think we should legislate on things like seatbelts for example - if you want to be stupid, go ahead. I think basically as long as it doesn't hurt others you should be allowed to do it.Legislation such as seat belt requirements are really done as "outs" for insurance company payouts. If the person injured was not complying with the law, the insurance doe not have to pay, or can at least fight it in court.

Clodhopper;1402124 wrote: Well, as a liberal (a slightly odd one, admittedly, but a liberal nonetheless) I am in favour of considerable freedom of the individual. I do not think we should legislate on things like seatbelts for example - if you want to be stupid, go ahead. I think basically as long as it doesn't hurt others you should be allowed to do it.


What about drugs ? I think that might be sufficiently controversial a subject to insert into the discussion. Would you consider the freedom to take all recreational drugs. There would be an argument that both, not wearing seatbelts and the taking of drugs, could impinge on others personal freedom or safety.

I'm all for taking away the interference of Government in our lives. They are supposed to be our servant rather than our masters after all.

Ahso!;1402126 wrote: Legislation such as seat belt requirements are really done as "outs" for insurance company payouts. If the person injured was not complying with the law, the insurance doe not have to pay, or can at least fight it in court.


So there we a have an example of a law that was negotiated for the sake of revenue and not for the general well being of society ? Such laws are passed purely for its economic value and not for society's sake

Snowfire;1402130 wrote: So there we a have an example of a law that was negotiated for the sake of revenue and not for the general well being of society ? Such laws are passed purely for its economic value and not for society's sakeWhile I firmly believe what I wrote is accurate, there is another side to it, and that is that seatbelt wearing, in which lives are saved also reduces anxiety and frustration within the society. A second argument on the financial side from the perspective of the insurance company might be that the economic viability of the company enriches it's shareholders and workers and ensures job stability.

All of that can be considered as the welfare of the society.

I can't see how not wearing a seatbelt can endanger others. I can see the reverse - a wearer tends toward risk-taking, feeling less vulnerable.

Here's a brief approach to the thread's topic if anyone would like to pull it about. It leaves people free to do all sorts of things while implying a rational need for taxation. It makes no attempt to say who or what should be taxed, just why.

If we're talking about the laws of a sovereign nation I'd want to start with a list of absolute minimal conditions and see where it leads. I may throw in qualifiers to stave off inessential side arguments.

No person may remain in the territory who has no legal right to be there. You'd think that was such a simple requirement and yet I've not heard many people agree to it over the years. It is the duty of the nation to enforce this requirement promptly and rigorously.

That gives me two classes of people in the country, citizen residents and non-citizen residents. Everyone is one category or the other. A third class, criminal residents, might be defined later once society's framework is established.

With that in place, I can start with a minimum requirement: Residents have an absolute right to life and self-expression within the territory.

Consequently no resident shall go without adequate shelter, sustenance, education, transport or medical treatment save any who voluntarily opt to be without them. We could discuss the meaning of "adequate" later but it invariably implies resourcing those without resource regardless of the reason they're without, and it implies pro-active provision to reach defined minimum attainable standards in all the areas mentioned.

The law, state offices and private enterprises shall be corrected where they show bias over class, genetic determinant, religion, social or sexual expression, adult age or health history. What have I missed from that list.

It may not be where the thread wants to go in which case ignore the post.

spot;1402136 wrote: I can't see how not wearing a seatbelt can endanger others. I can see the reverse - a wearer tends toward risk-taking, feeling less vulnerable.I think it's a good reminder that driving is dangerous when a person has to secure themselves - and especially their children. I know I was less cautious before seatbelts were employed.

Ahso!;1402145 wrote: I think it's a good reminder that driving is dangerous when a person has to secure themselves - and especially their children. I know I was less cautious before seatbelts were employed.
You may be correct but I suggest you're illogical.

What about drugs ? I think that might be sufficiently controversial a subject to insert into the discussion. Would you consider the freedom to take all recreational drugs. There would be an argument that both, not wearing seatbelts and the taking of drugs, could impinge on others personal freedom or safety.


My line would be that you have the freedom to take the drugs if you want, but driving under their influence would make you a risk to others, which I haven't really covered. I'm also in favour of laws against drink driving...

Hmm. Perhaps rather than actually harming others it should be significantly increased risk of harming others. Which would cover it, I think - you can take drugs in your home, but not then go for a drive while under the influence.

No person may remain in the territory who has no legal right to be there. You'd think that was such a simple requirement and yet I've not heard many people agree to it over the years. It is the duty of the nation to enforce this requirement promptly and rigorously.


It seems basically ok to me - where would refugees fit in? Non citizen residents?

spot;1402146 wrote: You may be correct but I suggest you're illogical.It appears to me you're equating a car ride with a Roller coaster ride. In the former, it's a mode of transportation and the latter is for amusement and thrill. The more scarier the ride the more one needs to be secured for the purpose of safety. Granted, some young people might view the car ride as fun initially, but that changes soon enough in most cases, and the distinction between thrill and transportation crystallizes.

Ahso!;1402133 wrote: While I firmly believe what I wrote is accurate, there is another side to it, and that is that seatbelt wearing, in which lives are saved also reduces anxiety and frustration within the society. A second argument on the financial side from the perspective of the insurance company might be that the economic viability of the company enriches it's shareholders and workers and ensures job stability.

All of that can be considered as the welfare of the society.


Yeah, but that line of argument can be applied to almost anything - eating breakfast makes me more effective a worker in the morning. Society benefits generally from me being more effective, therefore breakfast should be compulsory by law. Sleeping 8 hrs a night makes me a better worker all the next day, therefore...

It's a logical route that can lead to the most appalling dictatorship, imo.

Clodhopper;1402156 wrote: Yeah, but that line of argument can be applied to almost anything - eating breakfast makes me more effective a worker in the morning. Society benefits generally from me being more effective, therefore breakfast should be compulsory by law. Sleeping 8 hrs a night makes me a better worker all the next day, therefore...

It's a logical route that can lead to the most appalling dictatorship, imo.I agree.

It's used by corporates and politicians a lot, too....as I'm sure you know.

Do you think we could shoot Murdoch and Diamond and O'Reilly anyway, or would that be an irretrievable dent in my liberal credentials?

The whole process of liberty and freedom and the role of society in the implementing and protecting them, is full of hazards and obstacles. Where is the starting point to understanding what freedom and liberty actually are. Do we actually live in a society at the moment, where we think that certain liberties are missing or abused.

Are for example, CCTV cameras an infringement by a big brother society or a protection by a responsible Government ?

Clodhopper;1402161 wrote: It's used by corporates and politicians a lot, too....as I'm sure you know.

Do you think we could shoot Murdoch and Diamond and O'Reilly anyway, or would that be an irretrievable dent in my liberal credentials?


Not irretrievable and ultimately forgivable

I don't think being a greater risk to anyone should be criminal at all. Negligently causing harm should be the offence. Being a greater risk doesn't cause harm. Crashing into them causes them harm at which point it was negligent on the defendant's part by reason of drug use. If you criminalize causing risk you criminalize a thousand people for every one who does damage. Then you can't afford to catch all thousand of them, and you have a disregarded law and a criminalized community.

Snowfire;1402162 wrote: The whole process of liberty and freedom and the role of society in the implementing and protecting them, is full of hazards and obstacles. Where is the starting point to understanding what freedom and liberty actually are. Do we actually live in a society at the moment, where we think that certain liberties are missing or abused.

Are for example, CCTV cameras an infringement by a big brother society or a protection by a responsible Government ?


Depends on the gummint, really.

Used responsibly they can help to discourage crime, therefore improving security, and provide record of public activity.

Used by a repressive gummint, they can be used to discourage a whole realm of activity, and provide gummint with too much information about personal activities.

Like any tool, it depends upon the intentions of the user.

Government in society is, as Jefferson said, a necessary evil.

Government, IMHO, should be a function of the people, to provide protection from external threats, and from the abuse of Corporations.

LarsMac;1402167 wrote: Government in society is, as Jefferson said, a necessary evil.

Government, IMHO, should be a function of the people, to provide protection from external threats, and from the abuse of Corporations.


Instead what we have, instead of a function of the people, is a master of the people and a tool of Corporations

spot;1402164 wrote: I don't think being a greater risk to anyone should be criminal at all. Negligently causing harm should be the offence. Being a greater risk doesn't cause harm. Crashing into them causes them harm at which point it was negligent on the defendant's part by reason of drug use. If you criminalize causing risk you criminalize a thousand people for every one who does damage. Then you can't afford to catch all thousand of them, and you have a disregarded law and a criminalized community.


I thought of that, but then thought of our theoretical hallucinating driver creeping up the motorway at 5mph while counting the pink bunnies (the driver, not me) not actually causing harm but certainly causing mayhem...

Clodhopper;1402169 wrote: I thought of that, but then thought of our theoretical hallucinating driver creeping up the motorway at 5mph while counting the pink bunnies (the driver, not me) not actually causing harm but certainly causing mayhem...


Mayhem's cheaper than failing to catch a thousand people who actually broke the wider law and didn't get convicted for it. If all of those thousand get convicted then fine, you have a law which is effectively policed. If you only selectively police it, either it's a lousy law or you have a lousy police force. Either way, limit what you call a crime law to what you can be reasonably confident you'll convict whenever it's broken. That way it will only be broken by idiots, infrequently. At the moment many laws are broken by people who know full well they're very unlikely to face a consequence in a court.

Oh, I absolutely agree that that unenforced law is bad law. But thinking again of our driver, he is also very significantly increasing the chances of someone else having an accident. Without wanting to get too dictatorial about it, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I must admit I'm rather taken by the idea of our roads filled with hallucinating drivers doing 5 mph giggling faintly and producing clouds of suspicious smoke, but fear it would be impractical.

actually, if people were allowed to do it, as a driver you would know to expect it so it wouldn't be as dangerous. Yep, fair enough. Change the service stations: Diesel, 4 star, LSD.:wah:

I claim that preventative laws, as opposed to punishing harm laws, have criminalized so many who are so used to not being prosecuted that (a) the courts have become a laughing stock and (b) nobody hesitates to break laws because nobody expects to be caught for it.

Reducing the number of crimes by reducing what's a crime would let enforcement focus on fewer events and bring a higher proportion to the courts. At which point fewer people break those few laws because they expect to be caught if they do. Crime winds down to minimal levels.

I agree.

Does that make me a stalinist?:-3

There is a push from the Harper government in Canada to fill more prisons. It's frightening talk when we are justifying crimes based on claims that our own societies are free and simultaneously trying to reduce the number of free people within our own model.

Noam Chomsky said the following in an interview about Anarcho-Syndicalism. "That is, as long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful."

There is a lot more in the interview but that struck me as an issue with which most of the frustrated, common people could identify and use as a starting point. The big stopper in these discussions is when the common people become frightened that chaos and change will leave them worse off than the current state of dystopia. They want a complete and "fool proof" structure in place and a tidy surgery wherein one system is removed and the new system implanted in the space of a day.

I also think that when the theoretical perfection meets real squidgy people it'll turn out to be messier than that and there will be grey areas that need legislation - for example, I don't think we should be allowed to beat our wives with a stick thicker than our thumb, no matter how much that may impinge on our personal liberty...

Does anybody have any ideas on what crime they would take off the statute books ? Decriminlising drugs perhaps.

Crimes against the person

Crimes against property

Crimes against Justice...maybe amongst this group ??

There is a lot more in the interview but that struck me as an issue with which most of the frustrated, common people could identify and use as a starting point. The big stopper in these discussions is when the common people become frightened that chaos and change will leave them worse off than the current state of dystopia. They want a complete and "fool proof" structure in place and a tidy surgery wherein one system is removed and the new system implanted in the space of a day.


Um. I'm reminded of the chinese curse about living in interesting times...it's all very true, but I hope I'm not going to have to...

I think one of the strengths of our democracies is that they have shown themselves able to change and develop over time without the sort of bloodshed that usually goes with revolution. That's no guarantee of the future, of course, but it is at least a cause for hope.

The criminal code is massive. It's so massive you need a law degree to know if someone has violated your rights in the majority of cases. Judges don't decide what happened and make a moral decision based on reason, they collect all the statements, investigate what loopholes the lawyers have found and decide which lawyer used the criminal code best to the extent of how words can be manipulated to support their case.

So, outside of "you can't murder me" not much is really clear in the entire book of laws. "You can't steal my stuff" is convoluted by arguments such as a person claiming they had reason to believe the owner had given them permission to take the stolen goods... and some people are killed by virtue of self defense. So we tried to write down all the possible variations of every single tort and misdeed, resulting in an entire industry of over payed professionals who make a living off the idea that words mean more than the concepts they were used to describe.

Get rid of the whole bloody book and appoint judges who can make moral decisions.

Isn't law supposed to be moral code?

There's a book called "Three Felonies A Day" about how the average person could be tried for violating about three laws in the course of an average day.



Émile Durkheim - "When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."

Then we have the obstacles to self-employment. You can't have a lemonade stand without a vendor license. The requirements to obtain an occupation have risen to ridiculous heights. CARPE DIEM: Want More Jobs? Remove Barriers to Job Creation

You can't have a lemonade stand without a vendor license.


Unfortunately, unless you have controls there, some people will produce toxic lemonade in dirty bottles and you'll only find out when a lot of people get sick.

Sometimes licensed manufacturers have to recall meat or veggies because it turns out they are tainted with bacteria. It happens with license or without. If I'm buying lemonade from a stand, I notice whether or not the vendors are pouring it into disposable cups. Is there no trust in intelligence or people's ability to be responsible for their own actions?

Food can be argued more strictly but what about the local artist who wants to sell paintings? Handmade scarves? Jewellery? What risk does that pose to the world?

Food's a tricky one. You think of say, Rupert Murdoch or Bob Diamond's known attitude to the public and what smooth, convincing liars they are. I've been poisoned in a restaurant before now, due to negligence (theirs, not mine), and reported them to environmental health who investigated and issued a warning. At least I could identify the place and get something to happen. There were kids and old people eating there - I was a full adult and fit and it knocked me flat!

Local artists display regularly in the Kington pedestrian precinct and at Hampton Court Lock and have done for years. Don't know the legalities of it but you seem to be able to just turn up and display at these places. Might have to join the local artistic group to get the right, really don't know.

One of the problems with being a liberal in favour of reduced controls on our behaviour is that we are very crowded together. Some might see it as perfectly reasonable that they just set up a stall in the pedestrian precinct; but others might object, saying they like the precinct to be clear so they can take a break between shops. Both are perfectly reasonable uses of the space, but they contradict eachother. In the case of Kingston, the decision was made to keep the space clear, but allow street theatre and buskers who do, I think, have to pass a minimum competence test of some sort. Kingston has been a Lib Dem Council for a very long time now - 20 years plus.

...as usual, a compromise between pure principle and messy reality!

In Canada you can't sell anything in public without a vendor permit. If you want to set up at an "open market" the market organizers pay a fee and and charge rental fee's for spaces inside their permit area. Last market place I participated in was $25/day and you had to apply for approval to make sure you weren't competing with too many other rented spaces for "type of product"

An obvious first choice for elimination of a terrible law would be Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. BC is close to ending that ridiculous fiasco but it only takes a moment of rational thought to allow someone the right to end their own suffering.

Sounds like what we call car boot sales: Turn up, pay a tenner or so, display on your pitch. I gather it's quite big, though I haven't done it myself.

Chuckle. Just thought of what must be unlicensed food selling - Match days at Twickenham the crowd walks through ordinary suburban streets to get from the train station to the ground, and usually a few houses will be selling bacon sandwiches. Often kids having a great time with mum or dad there in the background.

There's a really good muffin man in Victoria BC who makes them at home and his vendors don't tell. Hard to make a living just by being good at something nowadays. Also lends to the Three Felonies A Day archetype. Have you ever neglected to shovel your walk in a timely fashion? People get rich suing for falling on your walk. If they were free to sell their wares in public they might not think to sue you for an icy fall because they might afford a car or might not have had to take the job they were walking to.

So many silly things follow from restricting people the freedom to live in the way they wish.

Clodhopper;1402219 wrote: Unfortunately, unless you have controls there, some people will produce toxic lemonade in dirty bottles and you'll only find out when a lot of people get sick.


I suppose we're getting used to thinking that way. If people get sick because someone put toxic lemonade in dirty bottles - which if you're in Mumbai, for instance, is more than likely - then the crime of recklessly making someone ill has been committed. Why you also need to make putting toxic lemonade in dirty bottles a crime I don't know. It's that overwhelming degree of control which is constantly flouted that makes law enforcement a laughable concept. Society can effectively prosecute those who recklessly make people ill. It can't possibly effectively prosecute everyone who breaks the current precautionary law.

spot;1402136 wrote: I can't see how not wearing a seatbelt can endanger others. I can see the reverse - a wearer tends toward risk-taking, feeling less vulnerable.As it turns out, I found evidence supporting this claim. The experiments concentrated on seat belts and anti-lock brakes; in both cases drivers became more daring. Though I wonder if it's more in the initial stages of the introduction of a new safety feature that people tend to take more risks. For example, if anti-lock brakes had always been the norm, would drivers have been less cautious by default historically? I have to doubt they would have been. After the novelty wears off I believe caution would naturally follow.