Re: [LNSG] Nationalist Forums

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (National Anarchist) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (michael price) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> <snip headings and old stuff>
> 
> > > > > >   What you think is that people should be able to pursue goals specifically
> > > > > > to limit liberty by force.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Absolutely. If a group of people want to get together and form, say,
> > > > > an Islamic intentional community following a fundamentalist approach I
> > > > > wouldn't have a problem with that. As I said, people SHOULD be able to
> > > > > adopt lifestyles that Michael Price doesn't like.
> > > > 
> > > >   And I specifically agree to that.  The question is should they be able
> > > > to force me to adopt their lifestyle.  You believe they should I don't.
> > > 
> > > What I don't understand is why you would be there in the first place
> > > if you don't want to adopt their lifestyle.
> > 
> >   Because they might lie about what their lifestyle is or change their mind.
> > I have given this explanation before it's not my fault you don't understand
> > it.  Get your smarter friends to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> > > OK, you might be born into a particular, but you can leave if you don't
> > > like it there,
> > 
> >   No you can't, unless they let you.
> 
> Right -- both points already answered.

  No they haven't been, you've just claimed they were.

> Here is the answer again:
> 
> <begin quote>
> (a) There are some 500 to 600 intentional communities in the world
> today. Can you name one that doesn't let people leave?

  No, but then I can't name one that follows your principals.  If it
did
it would forbid people to leave, because it would be a State.
> 
> (b) Yes, you will get dysfunctional communities that behave in
> repressive ways and do things like not letting people leave. That can
> arise in any sort of social setup as a result of human nature.

  No, only if "social setups" that contain a State, which is what you
support.

> National-anarchism can no more abolish that sort of thing than can any
> other system. However, if an intentional community goes dysfunctional
> it only affects a small number of people.

  But if they all go dysfunctional they affect a lot of people.  And
they
will because you include the dysfunction as an essential part of the 
program.  You include the State as a neccesary ingredient.  

> If a nation-state, empire,
> or globalized world goes dysfunctional it affects millions. Moreover,
> a dysfunctional community is probably easier to overthrow or escape
> from than a dysfunctional nation-state, empire or globalized world.

  Based on what?  
> 
> (c) There's a system in place that selects against such
> dysfunctionality. On the whole people like to live in safe, happy
> surroundings. They like to live in attractive places. They do not like
> to live in dysfunctional places. Given this it is reasonable to
> suppose that attractive communities will appeal to more people, and
> better quality people with skills and resources than dysfunctional
> communities. Dysfunctional communities would struggle to attract
> people, skills, resources and will struggle to survive. Moreover, the
> formulae behind attractive communities would be noted and copied,
> leading to them spreading happiness throughout the world. If
> dysfunctional formulae are noted, they will serve as a warning. This
> should tend to select for the spread of attractive communities and the
> demise of dysfunctionality.

  You keep saying this, but if it is true why don't we all live in
such communities?  Simply becuase the ability of the State to bugger 
up our lives is greater than our ability to move away from it.  This
is due in part to the world being covered in States, which your
program
will not correct.

> <end quote>
> 
> Your response to this was to snip it.

  No my response to it was to debunk it more than once and to snip
half
your posts because I didn't have time last time I posted.

> Can you do better this time?
>  
> > > which you can't do in a globalized one-world superstate.
> > 
> >   Which is why I don't suggest one.
> 
> Nonsense. Libertarian anarchism will degenerate into a one-world
> superstate, unless it turns into national-anarchism first.

   Claiming this doesn't make it true.  You have no evidence
whatsoever
for this.  

> Why? Because of lack of restraints on capital, which tends to accumulate,
> leading to imperialism and ultimately ultra-imperialism or globalism.

  Point one, capital will tend to accumulate regardless in any
functional
system.  Unless you think National Anarchism will substantially reduce
living standards (it will) capital will accumulate under National
Anarchism.
  Point two, capital accumulation doesn't lead to imperialism.  It
leads to
trade and prosperity.  Having more capital goods makes people richer
not
more aggressive.  
  Point three, what you probably mean is that capital will accumulate
in
concentrated hands under libertarian anarchism.  It is far from clear
this will happen more under libertarian anarchism than under any state
system including "National Anarchism".  Under a State system capital 
tends to concentrate because the State can redistribute wealth to
those
whose support it needs.  This means that they get more wealth
therefore
more power therefore the State needs their support more.  This is as
true of "National Anarchism" as it is of any other State system.  

> > > (Yup, some communities MIGHT morph into dysfunctional hellholes that
> > > don't let people leave but (a) that MIGHT happen to any setup,
> > 
> >   Really?  And how exactly would an anarcho-capitalist setup prevent 
> > anyone from leaving?
>  
> >  Who would make people stay and who would pay them
> > to do so?  If nobody would, who would do it for free?  After all keeping
> > armed men where they don't want to be is hazardous to the health.
> 
> For a start, your competing police forces could become dysfunctional.

  All of them?  At the same time?  Every single police force out of 
(conservatively) tens of thousands?  It is also possible that every
single farmer in the world could forget his business and we would 
all starve, but it don't keep me awake at night.  Note that you did 
not actually answer my question, who would keep them and for what?

> 
> Another scenario would be the inexorable trend towards a one-world
> superstate that could well accompany a philosophy where capital can
> accumulate across borders can easily lead to that end -- you can't
> leave a one-world superstate without a spaceship.

  And how would this "scenario" come about?  A philosophy where
capital
can accumulate accross borders is LESS likely to result in a one world
superstate because there is no need to expand a State to connect
labour,
capital and markets.  
> >  
> > > and (b) as discussed, the fact that people won't want to support such
> > > communities will make it hard for them to survive and will select
> > > against them.)
> > 
> >   You mean like it was hard for the Chinese State to survive?  It lasted
> > for thousands of years with brutality and oppresssion.
> 
> The brutality and oppression in such systems arose precisely because
> of a LACK of national-anarchism -- because people WEREN'T ALLOWED to
> turn their backs on the state and do their own thing.

  Which is exactly what you suggest they not be allowed to do under
national anarchism.  Doing your own thing is the first thing you ban
when
you give the "community" the right to rule the individual.
> 
>  
> > > > Yet you claim that you are against communities being forced to adopt 
> > > > lifestyles they don't want.  Why are you against communities being forced
> > > > but not individuals?
> > > 
> > > Why am I against communities being forced? 
> > 
> >   But not individuals, yes. By the way what does it mean for a "community"
> > to be forced?  Is it the same as one individual in the community being 
> > forced 
> > > 
> > > First, because I happen to take a rather postmodern view of life. I
> > > don't trust people who feel that they have access to THE TRUTH and the
> > > RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS and wish to impose it on everyone else either
> > > at gunpoint or by starving them into submission.
> > 
> >   Then why insist on it as a part of your program?
> 
> Good question. Which is precisely why I have done no such thing.

  Yes you have you are just too stupid to understand that you have. 
By
insisting on the "community" ruling itself you insist that people who
feel
they have access to THE TRUTH and the RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS and wish
to
impose it on everyone else can call themselves "the community" and do
that.
This is the only thing that "community self-rule" can mean.
> 
> Next random allegation please . . .
> 
> 
> >  The only reason for
> > your "community" having the right to use force is to give people who
> > think they have THE TRUTH and THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS the power to
> > impose it on everyone else by gunpoint.
> 
> Not on everyone else. On those who choose to join them in forming a
> community.

  Or those that were born into it, or those that joined a community 
that claimed one thing and then couldn't leave when they found out it
lied.

> If, for instance, a group of Islamists wanted to set up a
> community and agreed to run its affairs using strict Islamic law, I
> wouldn't stop them. It's none of my business.

  It is if you are one of them and they won't let you out.
 
> >  You keep claiming that I wish
> > to impose my will on people, but all I ask is that they not impose it
> > on me.  This is too much for you.
> 
> You do want to impose your will on people. Specifically, you want to
> prevent them from governing themselves in ways that violate your
> personal convictions about the use of force.

  Specifically I want to prevent them imposing their wishes on other 
people.  And that's it.
> 
> If you don't want communities to impose their rules on you then I have
> a simple solution for you. Don't join them!

  And if they decide that my property belongs to their "community"? 
What
then?  Or are you going to pretend that communities will never have
disputes
outside their borders?  
> 
> >  Your basic wish is for a system where
> > people can be enslaved.
> 
> If you're so good at reading minds, maybe you should set up a circus
> act. MICHAEL THE AMAZING REPETITIVE MIND READER!

  It's like that Jedi power, only works on weak minds.  It also only 
works on people who say things that clearly indicate what they want.
You want to use force.  That is the only reason you want it
authorised.
It is not to avoid a one-world state since you give no reason why
alternative programs would lead to that.  It is not to give the people
justice, since you reject the concept.  It is not even because you
think
that your program might succeed since you admit that it would only
ever
work for a few and it's obvious that it would be crushed.
> 
> My basic wish is for an alternative to the neoliberal globalized setup
> we have at the moment.

  No your basic wish is for an alternative that includes arbitrary
force.
You reject without reason alternatives that do not authorise the use
of
arbitrary force. 

> I have suggested that this could take the form
> of people voluntarily turning their backs on the globalized political
> system and forming their own isolated communities, governing
> themselves however they wish.

  No you suggest that this could take the form of people voluntarily
turning
their backs on the globalised political system and forming their own
communities to tell each other what to do.  
> 
>  
> > > I'd prefer to let people associate as they wish and set up whatever
> > > groups they please without having POLICE FORCES (competing or otherwise)
> > > saying that they can't do this or they must do that because SOMEONE ELSE
> > > happens to have different values from them.
> > 
> >   Liar.
> 
> Please be more specific about that allegation. What is the lie? What
> evidence do you have that it is a lie?

  That you wish to let people associate as they wish for a start.  You
do
not, you wish to let them associate as the community wishes, which is
very different.
> 
> 
> >  You deliberately set up your system to legitimise, empower and
> > authorise police forces and force used by the State.
> 
> Incorrect.

  Then why include, as the ONLY neccesary ingredient in the
"community"
the right to "govern itself"?  This is a specific call for the ability
of the "community" (undefined and under your program undefinable) to
tell individuals what to do i.e. for a State.  There is no other 
requirement of "community" organisation but the "need" for a State.  
Why insist on that alone if you want something else?
 
> I propose that those who wish to do so be allowed to turn
> their backs on the system and form their own communities, governing
> themselves as they wish. Those who want police forces (competing or
> otherwise) -- let them have police forces. Those who want other ways
> of doing things -- let them have the other things. I see no reason why
> they should have to conform to the preferences of Michael Price.
>
  Neither do I.  I also see no reason why they should have to conform
to your preferences just because you and people like you claim to be a
"community".  Let's review what a "community" under your definition. 
When I first replied to you I asked you what a "community" is a you 
jumped to the conclusion that I was a "terrier troll".  This despite
the fact that it is a valid criticism and at the time I had not
repeatedly replied to you, a neccesary element of "terrier trolling".
You later claimed that you had defined a "community";quote 'Yes I did
(on 21 August): 'a "community" is just a group of individuals living
together
however they want' endquote.  But that is not what a National
Anarchist
community is, it is a group of individuals living together however the
"community" wants.  How "the community" is defined for purposes of 
bossing people around is to be defined _by the community_!  An 
deliberative body is supposed to define who it is, how it's run and
what limits are put on it's use of force _before it exists_.  This 
is a nonsence, yet you call me a "troll" for questioning it.

> 
> >  You specifically
> > call for me to be barred from associating with others as I wish.
> 
> Absolutely. If you want to go wading into, say, an Islamic community,
> throwing your weight around and breaking the rules they've set for
> their community, I think that they SHOULD be allowed to tell you to
> fuck off. Why should they be forced to endure you inflicting your
> presence on them?

  They aren't.  They can kick me off the land they own any time.  They
cannot however tell me who to trade with.  

> Not only that but if they decided to use violence and give you a
> hefty kick up the rump then I'd support that too!

  Of course you do, the only reason to support your vision is to
enable
violence.
> 
>  
> > > Second, because in the modern world there is a very real danger of
> > > globalization -- of a unitary superstate being imposed on us (de facto
> > > if not de jure).
> > 
> >   And what exactly is a "de facto state" according to you?  You seem to
> > use the term to mean a globalised economy but an economy is not a State.
> > A State is not trade in the absence of force but the presence of force.  
> 
> Meaning is use.

  No meaning of words is an agreed upon convention.

> I use the term here to denote the sort of situation
> that arises when the functions of a state are carried out by a body
> that is not legally a state.

  Well that's the trouble, you don't.  You use it to refer to all 
situations where trade can occur over the objections of "communities"
or members thereof.  Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have anyone carrying
out "the functions of the State" but you object to it.

> The European Union is acquiring the characteristics of a de facto state.

  It is, but then it is a creation of States, not anarchists.
> 
> 
> > > In http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html I
> > > explain the many dangers that I see in such a setup -- the massive
> > > concentrations of power,
> > 
> >   And how is that applicable to an anarcho-capitalist setup where power
> > is so diffused that over the course of a mile you might cross 5 
> > jurisdictions or more?
> 
> The five jurisdictions being controlled by the same people, right?

  No you moron.  For christ's sake read something about a political
philosophy before you criticise it.  The 5 jurisdictions being
controlled
by whoever happens to have been hired by whoever happens to own the
property.  

> Or maybe hired from Rentajurisdiction Ltd?

  No if they were all hired from Rentajurisdiction Ltd they'd be the
same jurisdiction.  Fuck you are stupid.  I know I shouldn't get angry
and abusive but really, you know nothing and you suspect little.  At
least
with people like Gordon and Mark Monsoon I don't have to explain every
little detail of my philosophy and their own.

> 
>  
> > > the scope for the whole thing to fall into the wrong hands,
> > 
> >   Again in anarcho-capitalism the thing cannot possibly be in anyone's
> > "hands" in the sense of being under their political control
> 
> Sure it can. They can use economics,

  The trouble is the economics doesn't give them political control.

> or those competing police forces could do a deal and use violence.

  They could but how would the cartel survive all the people who
wanted
to become private police forces?  Basically everyone in the world who
wanted to make a living as a cop would have to agree to impose
tryanny.
It's not all that likely that this would be in all their interests. 
Nor
is it likely it could be organised if it was.

> Of course, then you wouldn't have anarcho-capitalism any more -- but
> that's the problem: it wouldn't last.

  Keep on claiming that, someday it might magically become true.
> 
>  
> > > the scope for massive corruption,
> > 
> >   Which you combat by allowing a body to make unappealable judgements in
> > the absence of a concept or rights.  Can me cynical but I think such a
> > creature might become corrupt.  
> 
> I don't think you're cynical at all. If you think that appeals systems
> and bills of rights prevent corruption I'd say that's pretty gullible.

  I don't believe an appeals system or bill or rights by themselves
prevent
corruption.  Think for a minute _I'm an anarcho-capital_.  If I
believe
in the capacity of appeals systems and bills of rights I'd be a
minarchist.
I believe in competition.   
> 
> Each community solves corruption problems in its own way.
> 
  Or not.
>  
> > > the remoteness from the people,
> > 
> >   And how does that apply to anarcho-capitalism?  Any judical system that
> > was "[remote] from the people" would rapidly go bankrupt.
> > 
> > > the inescapability.
> > 
> >   Which you combat by allowing legal system to kill emigrants?
> 
> How would that combat a globalized world?

  Hey it's your suggestion not mine.

> Surely the better solution would be to enable people to turn their backs
> on it and create alternative communities.

  Yes it would, but your communities aren't alternatives to statism
they
are smaller versions of it.
> 
>  
> > > Conventional nation-states and empires are simply co-opted by this
> > > creature -- which is where I part company from the nationalists and
> > > national-bolsheviks. To resist you need small communities that
> > > ferociously defend themselves against any form of cooptation by the
> > > Establishment.
> > 
> >   How?
> 
> However they wish. No restrictions. Let THEM decide.
> 
> >  By denying individuals beneficial trades for fear of "co-option"?
> > If the individual gains more from the trade than he loses by "co-option"
> > then what right have you to deny him?
> 
> None. If he wants to trade, let him go and trade.

  And when the community strings him up on a tree?  

> Nobody should be forced to be a national-anarchist. It's voluntary.

  But having become one, they can be forced to anything.
> 
>  
> > > You ask why am I NOT against individuals being forced?
> > > 
> > > That's a misrepresentation of my position.
> > 
> >   No it is not.  The whole point of your philosophy is to justify the 
> > use of force.
> 
> The whole point is actually to provide an alternative to a neoliberal
> globalized world.

  Specifically the part of the "neoliberal globalized world" that
stops
people being forced.  If this were not true you'd accept
anarcho-capitalism.
> 
>  
> > > I think that in a world
> > > where we have to live with other human beings then there's inevitably
> > > going to be a certain amount of forcing at the individual level.
> > 
> >   Maybe amoung the company you keep.  My friends and I manage to get 
> > along without the use or threat of violence.
> 
> No you don't. I'm willing to bet that on the whole you pay taxes and
> obey laws.

  Yes, but I don't levy taxes or enact and enforce laws.  Others may
be
violent towards me but I'm not towards them.

> Why? Because of the use and threat of violence. You do what
> men with guns tell you to do or they take you away.

  But I don't tell people what to do, I am not violent.
> 
> 
>  
> > > If I want to eat I am forced to either produce my own food or persuade
> > > others to give it to me.
> > 
> >   As usual the socialist tries to confuse "forced by circumstance" with
> > "forced by people".  I do not propose to eliminate the physical fact that
> > you need to eat.  What I propose to eliminate (or as close to as possible)
> > is my need to feed you or be beat up.
> 
> People create circumstances. You take all of the food, then that
> creates a situation where I starve.

  And you propose to solve this by giving me the right to take all
your
food if the "community" says I can?  Spot the mistake, pal.
> 
>  
> > > I am forced to refrain from stealing food from people who are bigger and
> > > stronger than I am.
> > 
> >   Rubbish, the "community" will back up your thuggery.
> 
> No it won't. It'll sling me in jail.

  Why?  Surely the community wants to steal as much as you do.  If not
why insist that they be allowed to?
> 
>  
> > > Much forcing is contingent: IF you want A then you MUST do B.
> > 
> >   That is often being forced by circumstance.
> 
> Circumstance created by people.

  You claim.
> 
> >  If you want corn to grow
> > you must plant it and water it or persuade someone else to do it.  That 
> > doesn't justify forcing other people to do things.  The fact that corn
> > doesn't grow at your whim gives you no right to force others.  The fact
> > that seawater must be purified to give potable water and salt doesn't
> > give you the right to murder or steal.
> 
> I agree entirely. But if I want education, or work, or security, or
> happiness, or any number of other goals then I need other people. My
> attainment of my goals becomes contingent on other people. They can
> force me to do things by either facilitating or standing in the way of
> my goals.

  The fact that you need other people doesn't give you the right to
tell
them what to do.  If you want their help then _ask nicely_.  Try this 
new techique called _payment_.  It works wonders.

> (The same is true of negative goals such as the avoidance of
> misery.)
> 
>  
> > > Some isn't: if someone has the power and will to force you to do 
> > > something, then unless he is restrained (which will require force) then
> > > he will use force against you.
> > 
> >   If he is a thug like you, yes.
> 
> Or a dictator like you. You see, I can call people names too.

  Yes, but you can't call them accurate ones.  What do I "dictate"?
That you do not dictate to me.  That is all.  Nothing else.  What do
you
dictate?  That the poor saps that join your "communities" eat what you
and your buddies say, sleep where and with whom you and your buddies
say,
work when and as hard as you and your buddies say etc.  Of course you
claim
there's a chance you and your buddies won't shove people around.  If
there is why ask for the ability to? 
> 
>  
> > > I don't see how you can get away from that.
> > 
> >   Simply, distinguish between the illegitimate aggressive and 
> > legitimate defensive uses of force.
> 
> And who dictates what is legitimate and illegitimate? Now let me
> guess! Would his initials be M. and P., perchance?

  No.  Try again.  Hint: the term "independant" and "arbitrarion"
might
come into it.  
> 
> 
> >  Forbid the initiation of force
> > and not it's defensive use.  How hard is that to figure out?
> 
> Very hard indeed because as I explained before the distinction between
> aggressive and defensive force is very hard to make.

  For you.

> There are clear
> cut cases, as when you try to shoot me and I shoot back. There are
> less clear cut cases, like the American invasion of Iraq.

  And that is unclear to you because...
> 
> >  I am
> > not "forcing you" not to attack me.  I am simply defending myself.
> 
> As Hitler said to the Poles.

  And he lied.  And it was pretty obvious that he was lying at the
time.
> 
> > I do not force you to live according to my values, I simply state
> > that pursueing the value of murdering me will invite retaliation.
> 
> Michael, I'm not advocating that you be murdered.

  You are advocating a system that would allow me to be murdered for
any reason at any time.  You don't like me.  Pardon me for jumping to
the obvious conclusion that I should be a little worried.  

> All I'm saying is
> that if people don't want to live libertarian anarchist lives, then
> let them go and live their lives according to some other principles
> EVEN if you, or I, or both of us, find those principles disgusting.

  And if they decide they don't want to live that way anymore I can
watch them being shot going over the wire?
>  
> > > Some people actually WANT to be forced. People voluntarily accept
> > > restrictive religions all the time
> > 
> >   Most of which don't force people to do anything.
> 
> I think most require certain actions.

  They require it in the sense that if you don't do it they make nasty
noises and claim you're going to hell.  I don't think most churchs
burn
sodomites however.  
>  
> > > -- look at converts to Islam!
> > 
> >   Most of whom know they need not fear force if they cease being a 
> > muslim. 
> 
> Rubbish. Most of them fear a great deal of force from Allah.

  And if they stopped being Muslim how would threats from a
non-existant
god coerce them?  
>   
> > > I may well be purchasing a house next week. To do that I'm FORCED to go
> > > through all sorts of rituals including spending a lot of money.
> > 
> >   No you choose to do that.  If you choose to do it you can't claim to 
> > be being forced.  It's a simple distinction.  
> 
> Nope. If I want the house I have to go through the rituals. No rituals
> then -- SANCTION -- no house.

  But that is not being forced, it is not getting what you want.  I
don't
get what I want from Elle McPherson.  She is not however forcing me. 
I
don't get what I want from my employer.  He keeps insisting on
something
called "work" in return for pay.  The bastard.  But he is not forcing
me
either.  You are one of these little boys who thinks that because you
don't
get everything you want, when you want it it is force.  Grow up it
aint.
>  
> > > However, I don't really mind. The presence or absence of that sort of
> > > force isn't a big thing.
> > 
> >   1 1/2 million dead a year for the entire 20th century is not a big
> > thing?  Upwards of 20% of your income going to people you don't know
> > for things you don't want or need that often endanger your life,
> > liberty and/or happiness is not a big thing?  September the 11th 
> > was not a big thing?  World War II was not a big thing?  The Rwandan
> > genocide was not a big thing?  The Holocost?  The Armenian Holocost?
>  
> Those are big things. I was referring to my house purchase. See,
> there's a difference! (Duh!)

  Sorry I was confused by your reference to the use of force where no
force was used.
>  
> > > Given that there will always be a level of interpersonal force, the
> > > question isn't how to abolish it altogether but rather how to manage
> > > it. My answer is to give individuals the maximum possible choice of
> > > the extent to which they wish to be forced and the manner in which
> > > they are forced.
> > 
> >   No it is to give communities that.  If you wanted to give individuals
> > that you would give individuals sovereignty.
> 
> And how best to do that given that politics works at the level of
> social structure -- i.e. community level -- rather than individual
> level?

  What does that mean?  Politics very much works at the "individual
level".  If I am the only one who wants to paint my house with
political
slogans and the community tries to stop me it very much works at my
level.

> By letting individuals form groups as they wish (or not at all)
> and govern themselves as they wish.

  That is your little trick, talking about individuals forming groups
and them implying that "govern themselves" refers to individuals.  It
doesn't.  It referes to groups "governing themselves" which means 
individuals can't.

> Why? Because once you start restricting these things, you restrict not
> only the GROUPS but also the INDIVIDUALS comprising the groups. You are 
> saying 'you cannot associate in certain ways'.

  I am saying that you cannot associate in ways that restrict
individual
soveriegnty.  This doesn't reduce individual soveriegnty.

> That restricts individual sovereignty.

  No what you suggest eliminates it.
> 
> 
>  
> > > This can best be achieved, I suggest, by encouraging
> > > a DIVERSE world in which people have access to a large number of
> > > alternative lifestyles. And this can best be achieved by people
> > > turning their backs on neoliberal globalism and doing their own thing.
> > 
> >   You have no idea how to give people a diverse world in which people
> > have access to a large number of alternative lifestyles.  If you did
> > your first suggestion wouldn't be to allow people to restrict the 
> > lifestyles of others.
> 
> No, it'd be to allow them to form their own INTENTIONAL communities
> which they can govern HOWEVER they want.

  Which means exactly what I said.  Your idea is for them to form
commnities that allow people to restrict the lifestyles of others.

> Those who want to accept any restrictions they wish to observe can join.

  But the restrictions could change without notice or consent.  

> Those who don't don't have to.

  Ahh... the statists only freedom, the freedom to choose your cage.

> That'd be my first suggestion.
> 
> >  Nor would it be to create small isolated 
> > communities which are not big enough to 
> 
> You've tailed off in mid-sentence,

 Sorry.
> >  Nor would it be to create small isolated 
> > communities which are not big enough to defend themselves.


> which is just as well given that
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html explicitly observes the
> importance of the communities being large enough to attain their
> goals.

  Their goals being to defend themselves against imperialism from
(amoung others) the USA.  Good luck getting a community big enough
to do that.
  
>  
> > > >  What is it for a community to be forced anyway?
> > > 
> > > 'OK, you bunch of veggie freaks! Get off of this land within 30
> > > minutes or you're all under arrest.'
> > 
> >   So if I say "Half of you get off this land within 30 minutes 
> > or half of you are under arrest."  Then the community is not forced?
> 
> Sure it is.

  No it isn't.  Only half the community is forced.  
> 
> 
> > What if I only insist that one "veggie freak" leave?
> 
> Yup.

  So the community is one individual?  That means you think
masturbation is
group sex.  
> 
> >  If a community walks onto another communities land and the second
> > community orders then to leave is that "the community being forced"?
> 
> Yup. My sympathy in this instance would be with the second community.

  Sorry, I should have been clearer.  Is that the first community
being
forced?  You seem to be saying that if a community takes over
another's
land it is either forcing that community or negating it's right not
to be forced.  So how do you define "it's land", "it's water", "it's
clean air", "it's fish" etc.  If these things are undefined they will
go to the community that takes them by force.  Welcome back
imperialism.

> > If so then how do communities defend themselves against aggressive
> > communities trying to take over?
> 
> However they wish. Who are you to dictate what they can or cannot do?

  Hey I'm just asking how your pipe dream opperates.  Apparently have
no
reason to believe that communities won't be imperialist and no ideas
on how to stop them once they do.  
> 
>   
> > > > > >  I have never said that violent coercion is
> > > > > > OK when I feel that someone is doing something I don't personally like.
> > > > > > You have.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah, so I was just imagining things when you wrote a few months ago
> > > > > that you'd use violent force if you felt a community was preventing
> > > > > one of its members from trading with you.
> > > > 
> > > >   No you are imagining that that is violent coercion.  The community
> > > > was the one who used force to prevent my trading with the member of 
> > > > the community.  All I said I would do is act in self-defence.  You 
> > > > might not understand the difference between self-defence and coercion
> > > > but others do.
> > > 
> > > So was the American invasion of Iraq self-defence or coercion?
> > 
> >   Coercion.
> > > 
> > > What about the American bombing of Cambodia?
> > 
> >   Coercion.
> > > 
> > > The American bombing of Hiroshima?
> > 
> >   Arguably self-defence since Japan attacked first.
> 
> Nope -- Japan was trying to surrender and the Americans were
> studiously ignoring them.
  
  See below.
> 
> >  Although that arguement
> > would require that the bombing be a "reasonable use of force" to stop the
> > Japanese military's attacks on America and it's allies.  This would depend 
> > on whether it was needed to stop the attacks and whether Japanese civilians
> > were legitimate targets.  I would say they were not since they did not 
> > attack.  So I would have to say coercion (but not because a nuclear bomb
> > was used).
> > 
> > > 
> > > The German assault on the Soviet Union (some are now arguing this was
> > > to prevent Stalin from attacking Germany, which was about to happen .
> > > . .)
> > 
> >   Coercion.
> > > 
> > > No, I don't think that it's a clear-cut distinction at all, in fact. 
> > 
> >   Just because you are too clueless to see a distinction doesn't mean
> > the rest of us are.  You came up with several examples all of which 
> > required less than 5 minutes of thought (total) to distinguish.
> 
> And how do you know that your answers are correct?

  It's called thinking.  
> 
> > > I think that you'd use 'self-defence' as an excuse to attack
> > > communities whose religions forbid their members from trading with
> > > you.
> > 
> >   Only if those communities attacked myself or my agents.
> 
> Or if it was in your economic interests.

  And you base that on what exactly?  
> 
>  
> > > If they don't want to let their members trade with you, that's
> > > fine by me.
> > 
> >   It's fine by me too.  Just don't impose their decisions by force.
> > 
> > > If their members want to trade with you, WHAT ARE THEY
> > > DOING IN THAT COMMUNITY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
> > 
> >   People aren't allowed to change their minds?
> 
> I think that they should be.
> 
> >  Communities are in your system.
> 
> They're in any system in fact.
> 
> >  If the community decided to ban previously legal 
> > trade then members that wanted to trade with me would find themselves
> > in communities that did not allow it.
> 
> So they can lobby to change the policies or leave, right?

  And neither represents freedom.  The ability to ask nicely for
people
to stop doing bad things doesn't equal the ability to stop them.  And
why
the hell should they leave?  The ones banning things should leave.
> 
> >  Since they did not choose to
> > live in such a community where is the communitie''s right to make them?
> 
> Doesn't make sense.

  Sorry, it's corrected above.
> 
> >  If they get the right to cease trading or leave where does the community
> > get the right to give them that choice?  
> > 
> > > They should leave and THEN trade with you.
> > 
> >   If they aren't gunned down at the border.  If their relatives are
> > murdered for their desertion.
> 
> Absolutely. I'd condemn that sort of dysfunctional community entirely.
> 
  But you wouldn't actually do anything to stop them killing people. 
All
you would do is say "Well that community is probably going to die out,
I hope".

> Fortunately, as we've seen, it very rarely arises and mechanisms exist
> that will tend to thwart such communities.

  It rarely arises?  Over one hundred states are based on this
principle,
together they span the globe but it "rarely arises"?   No it rarely
arises
amoung communities that agree they have no rights to force
individuals,
it arises all the time in your "self-governed" communities.

>  
> > > > >  
> > > > > > > They can pursue, for example, things like happiness,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   They can indeed.  That is the whole point of liberty, so that people
> > > > > > can pursue happiness.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But as liberty (which, let us recall, you seem to define merely in
> > > > > terms of a rather qualified lack of VIOLENT coercion) is neither a
> > > > > necessary nor sufficient condition for happiness,
> > > > 
> > > >   You might be happy as a slave but I wouldn't be.
> > > 
> > > Many are happy to accept a degree of restraint in a quid pro quo for
> > > other things. Typically security, the perpetuation of a valued
> > > lifestyle, or the avoidance of a dreaded lifestyle.
> > 
> >   And why is coercion neccesary to achieve any of those things?
> 
> I'm not sure that I said it's NECESSARY. I certainly don't hold that
> it's ALWAYS necessary. It's SOMETIMES necessary and often useful.

  When?  At what time did coercion give any of these things.
> 
> 
> >  If you
> > think that coercion brings security then I suggest you update your
> > understanding of the world past September 10, 2001.
> 
> Tell that to the women who succeed in fighting off rapists.

  Sigh... thank you for proving my point.  She was coerced to pay
taxes
to provide "security" and it didn't.  Her own _noncoercive_ activity
did.
So coercion was clearly not need in her case.
> 
>  
> > > Again, the advantage of a national-anarchist setup would be that you
> > > could associate with the community that suited your own personal
> > > preferences in this regard. If you want maximum liberty then go for a
> > > community that takes such an approach.
> > 
> >   Such a community would reject your approach entirely.
> 
> I don't have a problem with that. Let it do whatever it wants. MY
> approach is for those who WISH to follow it. Nobody else.

  But that's the problem your approach ends up making people follow it
after they decide they don't want to.  That is it's _only_ reason for
existance.
> 
>  
> > > I think most people would want a mix of liberty and restraint. But the
> > > point is that it's for THEM to decide how THEY live -- not YOU.
> > 
> >   So they want a measure of liberty but the ability to restrain me.
> 
> Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

  No kidding.
> 
> > If it's not for me to choose for them why is it for them to choose for me?
> 
> Because your behaviour affects their lives. You rape someone, that
> affects her.

  And that would be me choosing for her, which I do not want to do.  
That's the point.  If I agree to not choose for her all I ask is that
she
reciprocate.

> You eat all someone's food, that affects him. You prevent
> someone living his life as he wants, that affects him.

  But your whole system is about preventing people living life as they
want.

> You drive down the wrong side of the road, that affects people. I don't 
> have a problem with restraint per se.

  No you are very much in favour of it.

> The question is purely one of managing it. I say let each community manage
> its restraints however it wishes.

  And what does it mean for the "community" to manage something?  The
majority
vote?  We tried that and it doesn't lead to freedom.

> That gives you, as an individual, a lot of choice.

  No it doesn't.  It gives the community a lot of choices in denying
me
choices.

> If you want a lot of restrain, join a community with a lot of rules. You
> want minimum restrain, join one with few rules.

  And where is my written guarantee that they will not start
restraining all
over the place?  And where is the force to hold them to that
guarantee?
> > 
> > If I don't have the right to impose my value judgements why do they?
> 
> I don't accept that anyone has any 'rights'.

  Then they have no right to impose their value judgements on me.  So
they
have no authority to do any of what you want.
> 
>  
> > > >  Freedom may not be sufficient for happiness but neither is anything
> > > > you offer, and at least freedom helps.
> > > 
> > > I think the relationship between freedom and happiness is far more
> > > complex than you make out
> > 
> >   How so?
> 
> I actually answered that but you snipped the answer. Here it is again:
> 
> <begin quote>
> Freedom can actually REDUCE happiness when the freedom afforded to
> other people enables them to make others unhappy, as frequently
> occurs. Conversely, a period of slavery can enable the attainment of
> goals that then lead to greater happiness. This would happen, for
> example, in 'liberator' situations, when in order to free people from
> something very bad they are coerced into acting against that very bad
> thing. The Vietnamese coercion of Cambodian citizens during the
> overthrow of the Democratic Kampuchea regime of Pol Pot (assuming that
> the conventional demonization of that regime is justified) would be a
> case in point. If the Vietnamese hadn't coerced anyone, Pol Pot would
> have had another 20 or so years. In this case coercion led to greater
> happiness (again, assuming that conventional stereotypes of the DK
> regime are accurate).
> <end quote>

  And it doesn't contradict anything I said.  Freedom helps, but
doesn't
guarantee.  It is not any more complicated than that.
> 
> >  Freedom helps, that is the fact.  It doesn't guarantee
> > happiness and it's absence doesn't guarantee unhappiness.  That is 
> > a fairly complex relationship.
> > <snip lack of time>
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com