anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: |
Have you got references on that? I am most sceptical.
(Yes, Minister is my favourite series, actually!) |
OK, so that frame of reference probably depends on what you consider the center of power and what was created during the October revolution. The rural areas were largely feudal in nature so here they were completely replaced, but the cities had administrations which were charged with carrying out the new order.
What I should really point out is that the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was imposed by the Bolsheviks and while initially popular within the ranks of the infantry and many of the peasantry, you really didn't have a choice in the matter and they didn't allow any factionalism. I mean the Cossacks weren't exactly happy.
Sure, it wasn't a foreign imposition, but it was still emphatically imposed top-down. The people within the borders of the Czar's domain didn't choose this government, did they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, all the 'autonomous' soviet socialist republics ( were also imposed. From the perspective of every region, imposed by a foreign power. The Bolshevik reign of terror used the WW1 war machine to conquer the whole country, and eventually beyond its original borders.
I don't know if you're arguing that this was somehow different in Moscow or St Petersberg. The Bolsheviks conquered the country by force of arms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I remember it, the Bolshevik Party mainly used its own structure and that of the Soviets to serve as relay, as administration. That was mostly certainly not the same as the czar's, although it probably reused some of the staff. However, I may be wrong. I must say my memory isn't fresh on the subject. I would still appreciate references, if you can find any.
I didn't say it wasn't imposed. Indeed, it was imposed most brutally. I just said it was not created out of a prior state. It more or less happened on its own (or from the will of the Party, in the context of a civil war).
Actually, it has been argued that government is a consequence of war and conflict, in response to it. I do not have the mind for the argument, however, so I just throw this for your consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I can name at least one bureaucracy they took over: The army!
Moving the conversation forward, what maintains the fealty of the state is something I sometimes puzzle over. It usually isn't pure violence, although when pressed it always devolves into it. If we would all refuse to follow state edicts, they would have no power, but few are willing to lead such a movement and risk imprisonment or worse.
There are some historical examples of this, however. This one I found particularly interesting, and apropos to current events:
http://mises.org/daily/5886 |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | | Well I can name at least one bureaucracy they took over: The army! |
Yes and no. They used some of the officers for a time (and only when Trotski became Commissar to the Army), after they had already thrown so much out of the window they had to recreate it from scratch when they noticed it worked in the first place: authority, grades, decorations, etc. A good number of army officials fled to the Whites anyway.
| anarkhos wrote: | Moving the conversation forward, what maintains the fealty of the state is something I sometimes puzzle over. It usually isn't pure violence, although when pressed it always devolves into it. If we would all refuse to follow state edicts, they would have no power, but few are willing to lead such a movement and risk imprisonment or worse.
There are some historical examples of this, however. This one I found particularly interesting, and apropos to current events:
http://mises.org/daily/5886 |
On this, here is great inspiration to be found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, which is most likely on Wikisource, though on different issues, and for different reasons.
I think an important fact in modern democracy is that violent mass response to inappropriate governmental decisions is not something that is considered. There are no revolts, which were often the other side to government power in the Ancient Régime.
In 1789, 1848 or 1917, if there was a mass of people gathered on the streets to protest, everyone was affraid, there was real tension: Would the police or army shoot? charge? Will the people attack government buildings? loot the streets? even start massacres? Will they try to overthrow the government? (cf. Syrial and the Arab world) Now, a protest is worth at best a few cameramen, and its biggest consequence will be a traffic jam and random vandalism disapproved by the protest's leaders.
The press, too, has changed. Printing a paper against government was dangerous, political opinions showed courage. Freedom of press really was dangerous; now, it reduces the pressure, lets down steam (proper expression? y/n). Also, what most read was not that "Journalism is neutral and does not take sides" nonsense. I think all that courage created more appealing leaders to the masses; they might still be convinced today, but for change to happen, they need to be aroused and inspired.
I don't say all this is for the worst, however; but as a student of history, I find it very, very, very boring.
As you know Yes, Minister!, I will quote Sir Humphrey: "We lead a civilized, aristocratic government, tempered by occasionnal general elections." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5379
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | I don't know who these straw "people" are
|
ruveyn, for example.
| Quote: | | We didn't create the state. The state has always been imposed. |
hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
_________________
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Burzum
Indeed
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CrazyCatLord wrote: |
By living in and benefiting from a civilized, developed society, you agree to a social contract |
Why do people still use this tired old "social contract" argument?
| CrazyCatLord wrote: | | Inaction is also an action. If you make a conscious choice to watch a person drown, for example, you are at least partially to blame for their death. That has nothing to do with slavery, it is simply a moral duty as well as common sense. You would also want people to assist you if your life was in danger. In many civilized countries, it is a criminal offense to stand by and watch in such a situation, including ten US states (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Common_law ). |
Did you even read your own source? It states "In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another".
It cites only two cases in which you are legally obligated to help the person - If you are the person that put them in danger, or if you have a special relationship with the person (e.g. you are their parent or caregiver).
Ignoring the legal aspect and focusing on the moral aspect, let's say helping the drowning person involves risk to yourself.
Let's say the risk is a 50% chance that you will drown along with the person you are trying to save. Is it morally correct to help them in this situation?
How about a 75% chance? Or a 25% chance? At what point is it my moral responsibility to help the person?
Edit: ^ Thanks for screwing up the page layout. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Burzum wrote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: |
By living in and benefiting from a civilized, developed society, you agree to a social contract |
Why do people still use this tired old "social contract" argument?
[/img] |
You also didn't sign a contract with your parents when you were born, and yet you probably had to obey a few
rules and occasionally do the dishes while you lived under their roof. After you moved out, you still lived in and
used the infrastructure and accomplishments of a developed society. By doing that, you accepted the rules and
conventions that the majority of this society happens to agree upon.
This would even be the case if there was no government and no law. People would simply chase you out of town
if they were bothered by your behavior. It is impossible to live as part of a group without respecting some ground
rules and trying not to offend the sensibilities of others. Groups also expect their members to contribute and do
your share of the group's workload. It doesn't matter if the group is a house share or a nation, the principle
remains the same.
| Quote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: | | Inaction is also an action. If you make a conscious choice to watch a person drown, for example, you are at least partially to blame for their death. That has nothing to do with slavery, it is simply a moral duty as well as common sense. You would also want people to assist you if your life was in danger. In many civilized countries, it is a criminal offense to stand by and watch in such a situation, including ten US states (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue#Common_law ). |
Did you even read your own source? It states "In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another".
It cites only two cases in which you are legally obligated to help the person - If you are the person that put them in danger, or if you have a special relationship with the person (e.g. you are their parent or caregiver). |
I guess you didn't read on after that paragraph. Further down, it says:
In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law
enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13]
Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19]
Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite
their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1]
| Quote: | Ignoring the legal aspect and focusing on the moral aspect, let's say helping the drowning person involves risk to yourself.
Let's say the risk is a 50% chance that you will drown along with the person you are trying to save. Is it morally correct to help them in this situation?
How about a 75% chance? Or a 25% chance? At what point is it my moral responsibility to help the person? |
I wouldn't expect you to run into a burning house or otherwise put your own life at risk, but I think you can be expected
to do something other than ignoring the dying person. Pick up your phone and dial 911. Run off and call for help.
Anything other than just standing there and watching someone die. Only a sociopath would do that, imho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Burzum
Indeed
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CrazyCatLord wrote: |
You also didn't sign a contract with your parents when you were born |
Bad analogy. The government is not my mother. I am not being raised and cared for by the government.
| CrazyCatLord wrote: | It is impossible to live as part of a group without respecting some ground
rules and trying not to offend the sensibilities of others. Groups also expect their members to contribute and do
your share of the group's workload. It doesn't matter if the group is a house share or a nation, the principle
remains the same. |
I can understand your point when applied to a tribe, or perhaps even a village, but when applied to a nation
made up of hundreds of millions of people it simply becomes nonsensical. I do not know 99.9999% of the people within
my nation, so why am I in a "social contract" that I never signed that states I must work for their benefit?
| CrazyCatLord wrote: |
I guess you didn't read on after that paragraph. Further down, it says:
In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law
enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13]
Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19]
Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite
their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] |
Did you consciously remove the last part of that paragraph that states "These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers"?
Not that it really matters anyway. Legality is not the same as morality. If that were the case then using marijuana would be immoral.
| CrazyCatLord wrote: |
I wouldn't expect you to run into a burning house or otherwise put your own life at risk, but I think you can be expected
to do something other than ignoring the dying person. Pick up your phone and dial 911. Run off and call for help.
Anything other than just standing there and watching someone die. Only a sociopath would do that, imho. |
I would certainly help the person, indeed I would probably risk my life for them. But how about if there
was a 0.000001% risk that I will drown, is it my moral responsibility then? The point I am trying to imply
is why are you in any authoritative position to tell me when I have to help others? Why do you have the
right to make that decision for me, since it is my time, my risk, and my effort that is being used? |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Burzum wrote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: |
You also didn't sign a contract with your parents when you were born |
Bad analogy. The government is not my mother. I am not being raised and cared for by the government. |
You are still a member of a community though. You use public roads and sidewalks. There are public
schools and libraries, police forces and courts of law, fire departments and emergency hospitals.
You benefit from property rights, work safety laws, food safety regulations, tort law, and laws that
protect your rights as a customer.
In short, you benefit from civilization. It comes with a price. Civilization requires all of us to act civilized
and consider the well-being of others.
| Quote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: | It is impossible to live as part of a group without respecting some ground
rules and trying not to offend the sensibilities of others. Groups also expect their members to contribute and do
your share of the group's workload. It doesn't matter if the group is a house share or a nation, the principle
remains the same. |
I can understand your point when applied to a tribe, or perhaps even a village, but when applied to a nation
made up of hundreds of millions of people it simply becomes nonsensical. I do not know 99.9999% of the people within
my nation, so why am I in a "social contract" that I never signed that states I must work for their benefit? |
Because ever since humans have become sedentary agriculturalists, we have formed increasingly
larger states and nations. Would you rather go back to the days of city-states? You would still be
governed by societal rules. Unless you live alone in the woods or on a mountaintop, there will
always be rules and laws, as well as the expectation to cooperate with others.
| Quote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: |
I guess you didn't read on after that paragraph. Further down, it says:
In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law
enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13]
Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19]
Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite
their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] |
Did you consciously remove the last part of that paragraph that states "These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers"? |
Non-discrimination provisions are also rarely applied or enforced, but they still exist for a reason.
In this case, I guess that people rarely ever sue those who drive by without stopping as they're
being beaten up or lay bleeding on the side of the road.
| Quote: | | CrazyCatLord wrote: |
I wouldn't expect you to run into a burning house or otherwise put your own life at risk, but I think you can be expected
to do something other than ignoring the dying person. Pick up your phone and dial 911. Run off and call for help.
Anything other than just standing there and watching someone die. Only a sociopath would do that, imho. |
I would certainly help the person, indeed I would probably risk my life for them. But how about if there
was a 0.000001% risk that I will drown, is it my moral responsibility then? The point I am trying to imply
is why are you in any authoritative position to tell me when I have to help others? Why do you have the
right to make that decision for me, since it is my time, my risk, and my effort that is being used? |
[/quote]
Why would you have the right to completely ignore a person in peril? And how would you live with
yourself knowing that you could have done something to save a person who died partially as the result
of your failure to act? Like I said, nobody expects you to be a hero and put your own life at risk, but
you should at least pick up a phone and call for help. Does that really take so much time and effort in
the cell phone age? |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The law existed before the state, as did, obviously, civilization.
The problem with this 'social contract' canard is that it isn't anything like a contract. A contract is a voluntary agreement. Nobody calls being a child a 'family contract'. You can call certain things family *obligations*, but that's something else entirely than a CONTRACT. The reason socialists call the crap they force on others a 'contract' is to make it sound like we somehow agreed to this bullshit.
So please, stop with this social contract silliness. Call something an obligation, THEN try to justify it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hero
Snowy Owl
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | The law existed before the state, as did, obviously, civilization.
The problem with this 'social contract' canard is that it isn't anything like a contract. A contract is a voluntary agreement. Nobody calls being a child a 'family contract'. You can call certain things family *obligations*, but that's something else entirely than a CONTRACT. The reason socialists call the crap they force on others a 'contract' is to make it sound like we somehow agreed to this bullshit.
So please, stop with this social contract silliness. Call something an obligation, THEN try to justify it. |
I do not know if your anarchist or libertarian, however, I think the whole social contract is more of an argument against libertarians, as opposed to anarchists. I've never noticed quite the same arguments between anarchists and others. Usually just arguments for development and civilization or new vs old in that case.
It is doubtful you would see many of these same contractual arguments if not for the libertarians. The reason for this is because of the whole property arguments. While I myself disagree with anarchists in the greater scope of things, they at least are consistent in that property cannot be considered an afforded right. If you are to live in a survivalist like state of mind, that comes with consequences.
Libertarians on the other hand, want mostly what anarchists want, but with a few additional provisions, such as a social contract that property is accepted as real. Um....no. It doesn't work like that. If libertarians are not going to accept the standard 'social contract' of everyone being afforded life and protection in ALL regards, superceding even monetary concerns, than many of us have no reason to accept their contractual belief of property. I'm not an anarchist, but I don't believe in property. Suddenly, however, there are those like me, who exist, that should somehow accept their ruling of property rights, while not accepting any burden in return? Not acceptable. NEVER.
This goes back to what Crazy Catlord says, about living in a civilized society. It is the libertarian position that forces the argument for social contract. If I am going to accept the burden of property, than you damn well are going to accept the burdens others place upon you in return. |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, there is no 'social contract'. I have no idea what you're talking about.
If I recognize someone else's property, that isn't a contract. If I steal his hammer, that doesn't violate a contract. A contract is an agreement.
Contracts are a purely civil matter, not criminal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll never understand why some people still beat the tired old drum that unless you legislate morality, people will degenerate into sociopathic savages. Virtue enforced is virtue corrupted.
The truth is that selfish jerks are always going to find ways to be selfish jerks regardless of what "the law" says. The best way of dealing with them is for society to ostracize and ridicule such individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hero
Snowy Owl
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | Again, there is no 'social contract'. I have no idea what you're talking about.
If I recognize someone else's property, that isn't a contract. If I steal his hammer, that doesn't violate a contract. A contract is an agreement.
Contracts are a purely civil matter, not criminal. |
You clearly did not read what I wrote.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PROPERTY!!! Must I state it again. I am not an anarchist, but I do not believe in property. "Social Contract" Is an argument against libertarians who want something similar to anarchy, but with afforded protections for "property."
Property is a man-made concept. It has no significance to reality. Therefore, in order for me, or anyone else to accept that property is a function that WE(aka to which more than one person) agrees, there must be something given back in return. Call it "social law", "social contract", "social necessity", "social code", whatever you wish.
In other words...we either agree to live in a society with laws/contracts/etc. or we agree to live in space with nearby residences with no absolutes. If the latter is the case, than if someone comes to take from me, I must fight them off and manage things myself. Likewise, if I want something that is currently in the whereabouts of someone else's vicinity, than if they desire to keep said item, they must fight me off. If I win the fight...I get the item, until someone else strong enough to take it comes, or the individual gets clever enough to reacquire the item and return it to their vicinity.
Of course, you could still be civil in this scenario, but there are no guarantees. It is essentially the primitive doctrine of might makes right.
Now, as you can see...that doesn't seem like a pleasant experience. So if we wish to extend ourselves beyond this point, we must have agreements.
If you are a libertarian...property and possession are tantamount to your position. However, these are not tantamount to my position, as I don't believe in property, and only accept the idea in modern day society because it maintains the efficiency of society when you add in all potential "agreements/obligations/laws/contracts/etc. Keyword being ALL.
Therefore, you only get your right to property if you give something back in return. If you fail to do so, than property does not exist, because under this scenario, if I want something...and since we did not see eye to eye...I will simply wage war with you, if the item in question is currently under your temporary utilization, in order to acquire it. Likewise, if I desire your abilities in some regard, since you would not agree to said social meanderings, you will receive no quarter, and I shall subjugate you.
Are you starting to see where the "social contract" as it has been named(irregardless if you agree with the name as a fitting title), comes into play?
Either you agree to live in society, which means helping others regardless if you care for them personally or not, and accepting certain conventions...or you agree to primitive doctrines where there are no protections and you may do as you please(which means I may also do as I please). This includes subjugating, liberating, conquering, and amassing at your/my/his/her leisure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
