Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Live and let live 26
An interesting thought that came from a discussion now closed, that shows me that some people just haven't gotten what my idea of distributionism really means.
Borders open to immigration, but closed to movement off goods. Trade in ideas, rather than undercutting other people's markets. But most of all- LOCAL AUTONOMY. The question came up how genetic diversity could come about in "your utopias". And why, say, a Catholic utopia could count on, with a lack of pluralistic society, a priest to keep his vows of celibacy.
The answer to both these questions is local autonomy. Catholic communionities (ok, just made up a word there, but I'm trying to get away from communism when I'm talking about distributism these days) would not be the only form out there. Libertarians would be able to form their free trade zones. Hippies could recreate Vortex I or Woodstock or Burning Man on a permanent basis. The only rule is that you can't keep people in- and must at least try to incorporate people who want to join you under your rules.
Back in high school and college, I came close to forming my own cult, based on a minor idea from the Vulcans on Star Trek, which I later learned was a Kabalistic influence that came to the show through Leonard Nimoy's experience of Judaism. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
To me, a part of "Live and let live" that the liberals seem to want so badly, is "allow me to self-segregate", that is, allow me to form a community of like-minded people and don't send your big box stores to put our mom&pop shops out of business. Is that really too much to ask?
Sounds nice... in theory (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that there are people, who would want to be part of a certain local community, yet the local community, in majority, would not want those people.
As well, despite your stated dislike of big-box stores, the people near where you live WANT them... that's why they're there.
We all stand around talking about how we want to make the world a "better place", but humans are lazy... and that's why the world never gets better.
We can struggle and hold on, and make the world better in the short term, but eventually we just slack off, and things get worse again.
That, and we never seem to care until it becomes IN YOUR FACE.
All of this sounds good, and it sounds great... but "bullies" who force people out of communities is your greatest problem, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there are people, who would want to be part of a certain local community, yet the local community, in majority, would not want those people.
Why would anybody want to be a part of a community that rejects them?
As well, despite your stated dislike of big-box stores, the people near where you live WANT them... that's why they're there.
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you want to live next to a big box store, to buy a house next to a big box store, than to fo
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anybody want to be a part of a community that rejects them?
Ask the blacks. Ask the Jews. Ask the gays.
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you want to live next to a big box store, to buy a house next to a big box store, than to force them into a community that doesn't want them?
Why should the majority of the community have to move to a big-box store, rather than invite one in. If YOU don't like that they have invited one in, then well, you're free to leave.
At which point, why not form a community that forces out the bullies instead?
Because then you're the bullies!!! Imagine how easy it would be for a political group that composes a majority of their community to vote out the "bullies" or rather disagreeing political group.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the blacks. Ask the Jews. Ask the gays.
I have. And the Mexicans. I've yet to get any answer other than "it's complicated". How bloody complicated is it? Seems simple enough to me.
Why should the majority of the community have to move to a big-box store, rather than invite one in.
Because it's really only a MINORITY that likes shopping themselves out of jobs.
If YOU don't like that they have invited one in, then well, you're free to leave.
I shou
Re: (Score:2)
I should leave the birthplace of my ancestors because a bunch of invaders come in?
Oh, FFS, YOU'RE a dirt worshipper too? What do you do when two groups, lets call them the Palestinians and the Jews, cite the same scrap of dirt as 'the birthplace of my ancestors'?
And which ancestors are we talking about in my case? The Native Americans? The Germans who came here in the late 1800's? Perhaps the English who showed up during the Colonial era? Or the Welsh who came a few generations later as indentured servants? Or perhaps the little secret in the family who came from the Gold Coast by force?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, FFS, YOU'RE a dirt worshipper too? What do you do when two groups, lets call them the Palestinians and the Jews, cite the same scrap of dirt as 'the birthplace of my ancestors'?
The Romans had one interesting idea- too bad they ran out of salt before they could accomplish it.
Native Americans in my case as well. But that's not the point. The point should be if you support the right of migration, you should also support the right NOT TO MIGRATE.
Re: (Score:2)
The right not to migrate is not the same as recognizing your superior right to a piece of land merely because your ancestors occupied it at some distant point in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
err... past.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, doesn't have to be a distant point. Could be a current point. Doesn't even need to be ancestors, just needs to be you.
The point is the right to migrate should also be balanced out by a right NOT to migrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Also let's remember that a passport(very difficult to leave the states without one) is no different than the old Soviet exit visas, just easier to acquire, but the principle is identical.
Actually, a passport and a visa are entirely separate things. The passport is an internationally recognized document declaring your citizenship to a country.
You do not need a passport to leave the USA (by plane, yes, by boat, foot, or car, no.)
The USA however is requiring passports from their citizens to return, due to illegal immigrant paranoia.
Other countries have their own rules about which documents you need and in which cases. For instance, Germany does not require US citizens to have a visa prior to
Differences and Trade Are Necessary (Score:2)
Doesn't something like this lend itself to further and further 'refinement', with smaller and smaller groups splintering off? I may be wrong, but wouldn't only surrounding yourself with others that agree with you, or believe what you believe, a dangerous idea? How would these people ev
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't something like this lend itself to further and further 'refinement', with smaller and smaller groups splintering off?
YES! Which is the whole point. Smaller is better. Bigger just leads to people not knowing enough about each other, and not agreeing on basic values enough to avoid fraud.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't only surrounding yourself with others that agree with you, or believe what you believe, a dangerous idea?
Only in a pluralistic society.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the quality of life will be what everyone with any sort of memory expects or desires (let alone deserves). Also, with no 'preventative' medical measures to addr
Re: (Score:2)
OK, everyone or every group isolates themselves from everyone else. No trade with others unless the need is severe. No trinkets or bobbles or anything of the sort - just your four basic needs. No exposure to others that may have different points of view. No security from anything outside your group and no laws that apply to outsiders.
Except that last. Kind of need laws and security to prevent invasion, don't you?
I'm not sure the quality of life will be what everyone with any sort o
Re: (Score:2)
Except that last. Kind of need laws and security to prevent invasion, don't you?
But who is going to enforce them? By breaking every part of humanity down into small disparate tribes you've removed the ability to apply your laws to those outside of your tribe.
When you eliminate society as a whole you remove the infrastructure that is shared by those within it.
Here's one thing you might not realize about Roman Catholicism- nobody *deserves* anything from a quality of life standpoint. We're all just glorified cavemen.
OK, then no one deserves anything, not even equal treatment within their tribe. And certainly not food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. I assume then that everyone must earn the right for those basics - even if they don't
Re: (Score:2)
But who is going to enforce them? By breaking every part of humanity down into small disparate tribes you've removed the ability to apply your laws to those outside of your tribe.
That's what border police and land mines are for. To secure the border.
When you eliminate society as a whole you remove the infrastructure that is shared by those within it.
True. But the point is, I don't think the infrastructure is being shared. It's being abused by small groups for their own
Re: (Score:2)
That's what border police and land mines are for. To secure the border.
But then you need to get your border police to agree on laws with the border police of your neighboring tribes. Once again you have to start dealing with people who don’t agree with your tribe (based on your definition of what causes the splintering of tribes). That’s the first step towards détente.
Land mines? Surely that idea has never gone wrong.
True. But the point is, I don't think the infrastructure is being shared. It's being abused by small groups for their own enrichment- and that needs to stop.
I use society’s infrastructure. So do you. And others do. So we all should give up everything just so some cannot abuse the system?
One can be given charity- can be given what one doesn't deserve- out of friendship and love. The entire point of a small tribe is that friendship and love, which can't be found in larger units of humanity.
Charit
Re: (Score:2)
Land mines? Surely that idea has never gone wrong.
It's never gone wrong when used for the correct purpose and in the proper density- do deny right of access to a plot of land to all animal species upon pain of death. In fact, land mines are extremely good at *permanently* denying access to the area they're planted in.
It's that people forget the permanent part, and then encourage their children to play in old land mine fields.
Either that or they forget to place them in the proper density- allowing gaps you
Re: (Score:2)
It's never gone wrong when used for the correct purpose and in the proper density- do deny right of access to a plot of land to all animal species upon pain of death. In fact, land mines are extremely good at *permanently* denying access to the area they're planted in.
It's that people forget the permanent part, and then encourage their children to play in old land mine fields.
Either that or they forget to place them in the proper density- allowing gaps you could drive a tank through.
It's never gone wrong before? When used correctly?? In your tribe you seem to have experts in every field imaginable, and yet, they all must agree on everything. Do you honestly believe that any 'medicine man' would agree to salt the earth with enough land mines that everyone is 'boxed in'?
And let me tell you it doesn't take any encouragement for a child to go where they've been told not to go. Though with your optimistic view on the magical abilities of your 'medicine man' I'm sure they'd be able heal t
Re: (Score:2)
It's a weird sorta thing. He envisions a utopia that requires things made today in rather specific and specialized ways, yet is structured such that their construction will be prevented.
Also, mining, smelting, refining, casting, and machining metal isn't quite as simple as "I read a book, therefore I can do it."
Oh, and that coal he's burning for his abundant energy? The smoke is blowing east into my tribe's land, killing the plants and poisoning the fish. He's gonna have to knock that shit off, or we'll be
Re: (Score:2)
It's never gone wrong before? When used correctly?? In your tribe you seem to have experts in every field imaginable, and yet, they all must agree on everything. Do you honestly believe that any 'medicine man' would agree to salt the earth with enough land mines that everyone is 'boxed in'?
It was Chief Edison's idea when he created Edison Village for the Klamath. Of course, he was reacting to a century of broken treaties and white men stealing from his tribe.
And let me tell you it
Re: (Score:2)
It was Chief Edison's idea when he created Edison Village for the Klamath. Of course, he was reacting to a century of broken treaties and white men stealing from his tribe.
So one guy had the idea and all of a sudden it's a great idea? There are many places in the world that are 'ringed' with land mines. How many people inside the mines are happy about it?
That's why I keep my child on a leash.
You can't leave your child on a leash forever.
So your child will not become a victim of your land mines. What of everyone else's children?
Quite possibly because your definitions of utopia were created before 9-11-2001? I know that event changed my mind quite drastically on the risk of doing business with people you can't trust. The Coup of September 2008 just sealed the deal.
You're going to use 9/11 as an argument against free trade and commerce? Thats, um, interesting? You're suggesting that big business was to blame for 9/11?
And what 'coup of Sept 2008'
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to use 9/11 as an argument against free trade and commerce? Thats, um, interesting? You're suggesting that big business was to blame for 9/11?
Who else is ripping off the people of Saudi Arabia for their oil fields? Whose "interests" do we have military bases there to protect? If it wasn't for trade with Saudi Arabia, bin Laden would have concentrated on the Saudi Royal Family. America is a secondary target at best.
And what 'coup of Sept 2008' are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, you still don't grok what I'm saying. Too bad.
Oh, I do, believe me. I certainly don't like your proclivity for land mines and choosing not to force people to endure a law of equality. There's no chance anyone can start to take advantage of your system with that approach.
You want a fiefdom where you can get your way and you can plant land mines like flowers. If people don't agree with you they can get the fuck out (or as you phrase it 'are free to leave').
I don't think you understand that you can't cherry pick what is and isn't available to you,
Not quite (Score:2)
I understand the gist of what you are talking about. I just think it is pie in the sky idealism with no path to achieve it. It's a pure philosophical argument with little or no real world value. Entertaining in a thought experiment kinda way, but that's about it.