General Interest > Open Free for All
WARTIME CONTRACTS FAVOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CORPORATE CRON
JDavid:
I never have been able to find a definition for what mob rule officially is. I will take a few stabs at it though. I have seen mob rule compared to direct democracy often.
The first element is that I think anything on a huge scale is unnecessary. Big, centralized government is only three things anyway: 1. voting on issues 2. implementing the results through force and 3. centralizing the funding for the solutions through force. The larger the area and population such a government covers, the more misrepresentation takes place, which leads to large scale conflict or war. It is a form of forced unity, not real unity... United States. My take on it is that Washington D.C. is mob rule. One large mob with way too much power and their thugs spread across the entire planet.
The small scale is the only scale that is even necessary for polling, descision making, funding and solution implementation. I can't think of a time when Oregon really needs help on anything from Florida or Tennessee, especially once disputes on the large scale are resolved by getting rid of big centralized, forced unity.
Dispute resolution on the small scale will probably have to be resolved with technology. Polling systems in which everyone is the president (the one who initiates issues to debate and vote on), everyone is congress (everyone debates and votes on whichever issues they want to), everyone is the contributor to the solution.
Conjuring up the funds for small scale solutions should not be hard. I bet it wouldn't even require force. Perhaps all of the "yay" voters could afford the cause on their own, since they would be the majority.
There's also the issue of mafia style "security" coming onto the market. A polling system like the one above could be also used by the locals to run the local security company. The polls would dictate which policies are enforced. If the agency steps out of line, they run the risk of getting cut off immediately. The people would certainly prefer to have them as the security group they contribute to opposed to complying with mob threats.
Self-defense is the first line of defense even in the current system. Unfortunately, it is not currently common for everyone to learn self defense. I don't think everyone would need to be self defense experts, by the way. I just think that if such skills were extremely popular and scattered all over the population, those with a mob mentality would consider this a threat... never knowing who is capable of ripping them a new asshole if they attempted to muscle some security funds from a certain household or organization. Even Washington D.C. has some fear of the current day people's self-defense abilities.
I like the anarchists' principle of "no land ownership" also. If there is no price on land and no way to buy more land, there is no motivation (that I can think of) for a mob to manipulate or force people into funding their agenda. Anarchists say that to build a structure on a piece of land requires local community approval. Any time such a project is disapproved, there is plenty of land elsewhere to build the structure, so even this dispute is not likely to break out into a mob vs. the self-defending population battle. The idea of a battle breaking out over one group wanting to occupy some other group's structure seems too petty. Plus, to occupy some other group's structure through force dooms the occupying force to eternal retribution by the surrounding communities... much like Israel.
Finally, I cannot see any leverage a mob's leader would have in such a system. I mean, what would be the motivator that the mob leader would use to rally the thugs to do their bidding if land is free and life is not expensive?
That's just where my imagination takes me on this set of details. I do still try to find holes in the system, then work them out. It's not often that I do find such holes.
This is one of the main things that holds me back from starting that whole "Ignore the Government" thing. I feel like I would have to personally design and build all these polling systems before this can be done safely. That's not gonna happen, so I'm just keeping an eye on voting technology surfacing from other places. Maybe once such systems are widespread in city councils and police departments, things will start to take shape.
David
On 2003-04-07 10:56:00, Antigen wrote:
"Well, I don't think direct democracy is all that great an idea. At least not on a huge scale. Works OK for a small community where everyone at least sees, if they don't feel directly, the consequences of their choices. Otherwise, it's kind of like mob rule. No, it's exactly like mob rule!
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-04-07 15:12 ]
Antigen:
We already have such a polling system. It's subtle, and pervasive and comprehensive. It's made up of newspapers, pubs, churches, concerts and fairs, play grounds and grocery stores, back yard fence posts and anywhere else that people come together for social company and maybe a little debate or brainstorming.
We're doing that right now. Who knows what will come of it?
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate for a moment to choose the latter." -TJ
He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
--James Burgh 1774
--- End quote ---
JDavid:
I don't have any confidence in the informal media for debating & polling when it comes to convincing the population and avoiding battle. Informal routes are only preliminaries. We would need some concrete representation of the debates and the results of the polls. We would especially need such a thing in order to quickly get rid of the mistakes which were enacted by the majority once such a cause was found to be destructive. Without such a way of doing so, our informal debates and polling runs the risk of escalating into public outcry, then riots, then battles, then maybe even war.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-04-08 20:29 ]
Antigen:
No, there's a natural check to bad ideas. Bad ideas fail and people adopt better ones.
Here's an example. When I was a kid, ramp jumping was real big in our neighborhood. Kids were building ramps, getting on rat bikes and jumping over all kinds of things; other kids, small ditches, piles of sand... watever. I think it was probably inspired by Evil Kanevil.
So one day, this kid decides he's gonna jump the canal. He put a lot into it; practicing over grass, adjusting the ramp, spreading the word, etc. Finally, the big day came. Half the neighborhood was there to see the great jump. The kid made his run, mounted the ramp, crossed the canal but turned head firs in the air, landed on his head, broke his neck and died on the spot.
Word spread like wildfire. Ramp jumping for fun and fame passed into neighborhood lore overnight.
Compare that with the efficacy of helmet laws.
Any Irishman who doubts the reality of selective enforcement ought to take just a moment to comtemplate the etymology of the term "paddy waggon".
--Antigen
--- End quote ---
JDavid:
Well that was an irrational conclusion for the people to come to. The rational conclusion would have been to keep jumping ramps, but do not jump the canal. A formal system would have likely steered the debate clear of the irrational conclusion. This conclusion was based on the hasty reaction to the dramatic effect.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version