Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option  

This still holds. You have not presented how you imagine something to
function without the "mob" (aka elected representatives). Even the
constitution (that you cite later without really explaining anything) was
created by elected representatives (which seems to be what you call a
"mob"). 

You said you don't vote because voting is "mob rule". You said you have a
better system -- by the context obviously a system that doesn't need
elected representatives nor any other kind of voting. I'd really like to
hear about that. 

If you feel that I misunderstood you so far, this may well be. From my
angle, it's mostly because you so far say what you don't like with the
current system, rather than what you would like -- and how that would work,
avoiding what you don't like all the while still providing you with what
you do like.

> I am working to reverse the tide and replace " stable democracy " with
> something much better. I believe I could talk until I dropped dead and
> drag out easels with diagrams and pie charts until heaven burnt over and
> I could not get you to see that something has already existed that was
> better than what exists now.  A Constitutional Republic !  

If I understood you correctly, you propose going back to the original
constitution from 1776 and nothing else. It seems to me, though, that it
have been procedures compliant with that constitution that created the
current situation -- that you don't like. If that is correct, then it seems
to me that there's something missing in that constitution: something that
prevents things straying from the "right path" (as defined by you). So what
would you add to prevent things from turning out the way they did? 


> It [the US] was created to encourage and protect freedom and the
> sacredness of property.
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain  
> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the  
> pursuit of Happiness. "
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect  
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for  
> the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  
> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and  
> establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put  
> in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal  
> case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,  
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private  
> property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Interestingly enough, the word "freedom" doesn't appear in the cited
section. Also, the last item seems to imply that private property /may/ be
taken (it's written almost explicitly), just not without just compensation.
It is also implied -- if not explicitly stated elsewhere -- that what is
"just" will be defined by laws made by elected representatives. (Which
seems to be what you call "mob rule".)


> Systems that worked from 1776  through the early 1800's and into the
> 1900's  are being dismantled now in the name of  ' protect the USA from
> terrorists '  Those systems would work quite well now, if reactivated.  

Possibly. Which seems to mean that the constitution lacks something to
prevent that -- after all, it is general consensus (give or take a few)
that the current laws are constitutional.


>> (Remember? You don't want a group, you're alone.) 

> I never said that, never, ever, you made that up completely on your own. 
> Living alone was never a stated, implied or desired agenda on my part.
> Please tell me where you came up with the idea that want to depend only
> on myself.

You said "I do not vote because the system is 'mob rule'". I may have
misunderstood that as you being against voting. Which, as I see it, means
pretty much that you're on your own, because every group has to rely on
voting or consensus for deciding things. I don't think consensus works for
groups over a certain size. 

I may well not understand you. In that case, please explain what you meant.
Voting good or not? If good, why not now?


>> Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No
>> place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on
>> their loner status, only can be what they are because they are
>> protected (more or less, it could definitely be better) by the
>> "democracy mob". The frontier times are gone, mostly, and people are
>> everywhere. You better get used to it :)

> <-------- you are completely making up things about what I said, .... 

I didn't make anything up, in this paragraph, because I didn't say anything
about what you said. I just stated my opinion about anarchy and frontier
times.

> And you do not understand the various forms of anarchy that are possible.
>  There is not just one form, just as there is not one implementation of
> democracy. 

I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what I understand or not. 

In any case, the different forms of democracy are different in the way
governmental violence is restraint. Since there is by definition no
governmental violence (no compulsory organization at all) in anarchy, it
can't differ in implementation -- anarchy is the absence of any
implementation. 

There can of course be different outcomes -- but they depend solely on what
the individuals will do. You and I may differ on probable outcomes, but
that doesn't make them different forms ("implementations") of anarchy. 


> So do you want to hear more, or should I give up ?

I definitely would like to start hearing /something/ that states what you
want, and how that is related to you not wanting to vote. 


>From another message:
> I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves.

The problem is not whether or not to rule myself, the problem is keeping
you from ruling me. 

> Do I want my garbage picked up ?  hire a company to pick it up.

There is an amazing amount of public regulations hidden in that simple
phrase.

- "Hire": Requires at least the possibility of contractual relationships.
Which requires some laws to govern them, and a judicial system to decide
what is what in case there is a disagreement between the parties, and a
police force to enforce the outcome of such sentences of the judicial
system.

- "A company": Requires a system that limits the power individual groups
can accumulate. Otherwise, it's easy that a "company" becomes more powerful
that any other individual or company and even as the state itself. Which
then means simply that any constitutional protection (which you seem to
cherish) is gone, and that you start living by their rules. 

- "To pick it up": They need to come to your place for that. They need
roads. If there is no public space (administrated by a government), you'd
have to pay toll to every property owner on the way. (And I'm not even
getting into the question what ownership of property means without all the
governmental infrastructure.) So you need public ownership of land, and to
be able to build streets and roads, you may need eminent domain. Say I own
all the lands around your land, and I tell you to "get off my damn lawn" --
and say I have the goons and weapons to enforce that. No way that garbage
truck you hired will be crossing my lawn... that's part of what eminent
domain is about.

There's more implied that you left out. The garbage needs to go somewhere.
What is stopping the garbage company to just dump it on your lawn? Or
somewhere else (maybe even their property), where it leaks into the water
that is feeding your well?

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist