BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

The Breeding Exam - what would you put on it?

  
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)101112

 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:35 / 24.04.03
Leap - thanks for your response to mine - I will answer you when I have done a bit more work (I am interested in your view of history and have some questions for you on that front).

I have to say, I absolutely hate the idea of a social order based on small communities with no over-arching infrastructure in which people are armed with small weapons and there is no jurisdiction over them. You wouldn't want to walk anywhere alone at night, would you?

(Yes, learn self-defence: but I'm not strong, and if I were faced with an armed attacker larger than I am, even if I have a weapon myself I'm unlikely to come off well)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:48 / 24.04.03
Yes, but you're misisng th point, Kit-Cat. Nobody *would* attack you, because they have had EDUCATION and thus would live as our ancestors did, in perfect peace and harmony. The only people who might try it on would be the feckless minority, who a) would be too weak and hungry to pose much of a threat, and b) would not have enough electrum pieces to be able to afford a melee weapon. Ahem.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:55 / 24.04.03
Excellent post by Haus, which although leap may not respond to, offers an excellent point by point demolition of leap's position.

Leap will be unconvinced, of course.

That said, people do have a common nature (in the main) to be suited to leapworld(tm), and an un-leapworld scenario is one that is contrary to that common human nature.

I know leap believes this, but repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. Human nature is only articulated inasmuch as it supports leapworld, which is seen as its only valid expression. Compassion and cooperation can only be in the way leap intends them.

To advocate a non-leapworld scenario, through the support of an unconditional and institutionalised welfare state, is to deny the fundamental of human nature to reason
(respond to reality - unconditional giving leads folks away from an appreciation of reality and into a world where those who work NECESSARILY owe a living to those who refuse to work....sheer lunacy),

This is slightly dishonest. There are lots of social organisations that make no (formal) provision for those who do not work and most of them look nothing like leapworld. So to present this kind of dichotomy is obfuscatory.

"Reality" seems a bit circular here, too. In Haus consensual model above the "reality" is rather different. This is leap's problem, really, that he expects us to take his contentions as somehow obvious. "Lunacy" is again supposed to be self evident, despite the fact that social co-operation is to be part of leapworld, only its formalisation is "lunacy".

to privacy and self-government, and to personal involvement in their lives. Such a move instead supports a supervisory and depersonalising society, where the majority of people are deemed unable to make sensible decisions, and where an institutionalised elite rule is proposed instead.

The idea of a democratic, social contract is "depersonalising", and also beyond consideration. We cannot agree to a system, it has to be practically Orwellian. I also enjoy (for its hideousness) the idea that personalising starvation is to be lauded over organised charity.

And if we put the rest of it in context - though Haus did a better job than this - we are supposed to be modest and capitalist without the benfits of economy of scale for public services (that would "depersonalise" us). And we are supposed to believe that this will not cause a collosal deterioration in levels of health, education, policing, defence and employment. No more infrastructure, modern doctors, universities or law courts. Hell, no laws.

To be fair, I can see that some of these things might survive if the functions of government were to be replaced by private corporation. So if you had a complaint against someone - a legal complaint, in our system - you would have to have paid your Microsoft Insurance fee to see any movement on it. I'm sure Microsoft would ensure you had a fair process. This assumes, of course, that there are conflicts of interest in leapworld. Perhaps, through modesty and education, we don't need law. Or health services.

So, if we accept that there will be a worsening of these services - I doubt that leap will, I am sure some abstract noun will save him - then the consequent social problems become huge. Haus figure of a 90 per cent reduction in population is probably in the right area. It isn't a pessimism about humanity that prevents me from embracing leapworld. It is the badly conceived idea of leapworld that would not even achieve what moderately chilling goals leap intends for it. It is not only abhorrent, it is unrealisable.

Dare I call it "lunacy"?
 
 
Quantum
11:56 / 24.04.03
How about a society in which only the organisations of the state are permitted to carry weapons and use force? Strangers with clubs in uniforms? Don't get me wrong, I'm against arming the populace (look at America*) but I'm also against a regime that represses it's own population. The only thing that stops the UK becoming a police state is the decency of the people who do the job- the Police. If the police force were less moral we'd be fucked (note I used to live in Tottenham where Steven Lawrence was murdered by the police, who got away with it).

*In the US they say an armed population is the best defence against tyranny, yet they are led by a tyrant IMHO and have by far the worst gun crime in the western world. Bowling for Columbine?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:08 / 24.04.03
Yeah, but in Leap's world, there won't be a state to have armed representatives. There'll just be a series of contiguous but discrete self-governing communities, members of which have small weapons such as short swords, clubs, bows and arrows, etc., and a roaming population of vagrants who are attempting to survive outside these communities, some of whom will have small weapons. There will be no mechanism of controlling who has these weapons, because there's no jurisdiction across communities. Then some village blacksmith will reinvent the arquebus and all hell will break loose...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:10 / 24.04.03
Actually, there was an interesting article by Jonathon Freedland about just this yesterday - that the Police Force is larger than it has ever been, but is comparatively ineffectual in both the prevention and the punishment of crime, and that it could profitably be less well-armed, and more a civilian body integrated into local communities...this seems to make a degree of sense; I haven't had a conversation with a police officer on duty since I was at school; I'm hardly likely to go by instinct to them if I need help.

Article is here.

Sample:

There is a right-wing way to talk about this. It is to say that today's police force is the last, unreformed nationalised industry, its low detection and conviction rates proof of its inefficiency. And there is a way that should be instinctive for the liberal left. It would insist that smaller, more devolved police forces work better than large, bureaucratic ones. That police powers should be rolled back, making the force the kind of humble, close-at-hand, citizens' guard Robert Peel dreamed of - not the armed gendarmerie Peel's opponents feared. Where both left and right can unite is in saying that the current set-up is failing badly, clearing the way for too much crime - a menace which brings misery, especially to the lives of society's poorest. If that isn't a concern for progressives, I don't know what is.

Note, howvever, that the status of arms ownership in the US is a bit complex. IIRC, the second amendment talks about the right of citizens to bear arms as part of the social project of a "well-regulated militia". Anti-gun Americans maintain that this is covered by the National Guard, or civilian law enforcement, or the state-level volunteer militias, that the idea of the militia in the first place was instead of a standing army, and that the US' defence against lawlessness and tyranny does not now depend on an armed population, and mass gun ownerhsip in the current situation, and certainly the carrying of guns, is a perversion of the intention of the constitution:

The "Militia" concept applied to the citizen soldier organizations both in compulsory service and to volunteer companies known in Revolutionary times as "trained bands." Throughout history, Militia expands and contracts in numbers as necessity requires. Absent war or imminent danger, the "volunteer" Militia furnished the basic group with military training and back up to law enforcement. Some militia were organized independent of the State hierarchy, and local and county governments often deployed their local units. The volunteer Militia was to be "afforded effectual encouragement." Good people were welcome to join or even organize volunteer units.

Congress was empowered under the Constitution [Article 1.8.15] to call "forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Also, under the Constitution [Article 1.8.16] the Congress shall have the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them a may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." If this Federal power of organization was used to reduce or disarm the Militia, then the power of the state to furnish security and freedom would be diminished.

The appointment of the officers and training belonged to the state. While subject to Federal operational command when called forth, the Militia unit, as such, responded when called, and then returned home as a unit. Moreover, the units within the state appear to have had a similar organizational autonomy. Officers were elected, which implies they were not effectively subject to preemptive removal. This system seems to have operated for the most part with respect for unit integrity, and of course the citizens who served were dedicated and they obeyed orders while on duty. The Anglo American Militia organization worked from the bottom up, compared to the Spanish top down.
 
 
Quantum
12:27 / 24.04.03
Didn't Leap propose a militia rather than a standing army/police force?
Kit-Cat, I agree, I think society would naturally evolve away from Leapworld because 1)I don't agree with his premise that it is man's natural state and 2)You can't stop people inventing things. I think it's better to make the right course of action the simplest and easiest, so that lazy stupid people do the right thing by default. Any system that demands constant maintenance will fall apart eventually (look at the state of Democracy, which is very low maintenance- something like 20% of people voted for the ruling party in the US and the UK- voter apathy has a clear majority)
Personally I find Leapworld regressive, and I'm a fan of progress (in it's widest sense, not the industrialisation of invention progress) so I envision a golden future instead of a golden past. But they both require similar actions now in order to reform the atrocious system we have- devolution of power, encouraging friendly communities etc.
(BTW in the UK budget they got rid of working family tax credit, remember the thing I said was a good idea? it's now been replaced by Child Tax Credit or somesuch, only paid to parents/guardians thus encouraging more children. Maybe we don't need a breeding exam but a politician's exam...)
 
 
Leap
13:08 / 24.04.03
Can I then ask a couple of questions:

i. Who here believes that in order to make people behave 'well' we must be 'policed' in some way by a specialist body (police force, Inland revenue, welfare system)?

ii. Are these people a moral elite (who themselves do not need policing) or are they subject to the policing of "the people" (ie: the rest of us)?

iiia. If you claim that they are a moral elite, what evidence do you offer of such?

iiib. If they are not a moral elite, but are essentially the same as us, why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?
 
 
Jub
13:20 / 24.04.03
why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?

even with systems in place, people still do bad things Leap, weather it's commit murder or cheat on their taxes. Someone needs to deal with these acts, and the systems in place (the police force, the inland revenue etc) are there to prevent/punish this. How effective they are is something completely different.

That's not to say that without the policies which our society has, we'd all turn into a bunch of tax-evading murderers.
 
 
Leap
13:21 / 24.04.03
Kit kat -

(Yes, learn self-defence: but I'm not strong, and if I were faced with an armed attacker larger than I am, even if I have a weapon myself I'm unlikely to come off well)

(apologies for this numbering but it is the easiest way)

i. Criminals already carry weapons whilst law-abiding citizens do not.

ii. Not carrying a weapon yourself will not in any way limit the carrying of weapons by criminals.

iii. The police force is first-and-foremost a DETECTION force, not a PROTECTION force. 9 Times out of 10 they act after-the-fact to detect criminals, rather than interdict the activities of criminals inbetween the swinging of the knife and its connection with your face.

iv. There are few things that even the odds better between a little old lady [not assuming you are yet! ] and a 6 foot 2 muscular and fit young attacker, than a gun. I am no fan of rapid fire firearms, but a single shot low power handgun (with a lethal range of around 60 to 100 yards) is a very effective means of settling the situation.

Like a friend of mine in the states asked; which is morally superior, a woman learning to live with being raped, or one explaining the gaping black hole in the chest of the thug about to attack her?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:25 / 24.04.03
Ah, so now we have the arquebus, a nice, "dscriminating" handgun. Ever get the feeling the boy Leap is making it up as he goes along? Especially since, of course, by that logic if the attacker has a gun, and the desire to use it, the little old lady is dead again.

Some people might think it better to avoid a situation where the weaker members of the communtiy would routinely be predated upon by those pushed outside it. But that would be sheer lunacy.
 
 
Leap
13:28 / 24.04.03
Haus -

Would you please be so kind as to go back and answer the questions I asked, and then after doing so, possibly explain to me how the criminal fraternity are currently going around unarmed.....
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:40 / 24.04.03
This is addictive.

i. Who here believes that in order to make people behave 'well' we must be 'policed' in some way by a specialist body (police force, Inland revenue, welfare system)?

What does "well" mean? Is acting "well" a collection of behaviours that do not require any arbitration or resolution? So are you asking if people, without any legal system say, would ever have any conflict of interests? Errmm, yes they would.

If that isn't what you mean by "well", then I am at a loss to respond. Perhaps "well" is a moral judgement that I do not grasp? Perhaps it is a reference to some "natural" or "common sense" morality. But then policing does not guarantee morality, but enforces agreed upon laws.

ii. Are these people a moral elite (who themselves do not need policing) or are they subject to the policing of "the people" (ie: the rest of us)?

You mean the police who enforce laws laid down by government? Because they don't seem to be an elite, as they are told what to do by civil servants, who are told what to do by politicians who are elected by the people. Which "they" are you referring to?

iiib. If they are not a moral elite, but are essentially the same as us, why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?

You mean why do people have conflicts of interest? Tricky. Because we each have individual goals that are sometimes centered round the same objects and objectives?

Still not sure what "well" means. Perhaps you don't mean conflict of interest - though resolving such is a function of law and policing, which rather undermines the thrust of your argument. Perhaps by acting "well" you mean morally? Like having modesty? An example of which is not consuming lots of larger. But policing doesn't currently guarantee modesty and I for one couldn't guarantee a "return" to your idea of modesty.

Perhaps you are referring to things like murder. So, you are asking whether people need policing to stop them murdering others. In that case, the question is ill conceived. The deterrent doesn't stop the action. Which makes it rather hard to conclude that the absence of the deterrent will prevent the action. Maybe it will. Though any appeal to the "natural" is going to contradict that pretty conclusively.
 
 
Leap
13:43 / 24.04.03
I am truly sorry, but it appears that so far, people here are unable to grasp the simple questions asked.

Well = morally good buy whatever standards you would accept as right for the purposes of this discussion.
 
 
Ganesh
13:45 / 24.04.03
"Behaving 'well'" is another of those fuzzy, supposedly self-evident Leapisms - and stands, I'm certain, on the shoulders of other, similarly nebulous Leapisms. I feel sure, for example, it refers directly to those as-yet-undefined civic virtues of "modesty", "dignity", "good character" and the agreement not to inflict 2d6+4 damage with one's enchanted bo stick.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:45 / 24.04.03
Leap - when I said that I was predicating the situation upon the post in which you said that you weren't in favour of firearms as weapons for the populace, so I was thinking of a situation in which I, a weakling, am confronted with a more powerful attacker, and we are both in possession of (for example) a long knife. Now, unless I'm very lucky indeed, I'm going to come off much worse.

Yes, some criminals have arms. But in a situation where everyone (potentially) is armed, and there is a sector of the population which is forced to live outside the social order, the use of such arms in situations where one party is much weaker than the other is likely to increase.

Like a friend of mine in the states asked; which is morally superior, a woman learning to live with being raped, or one explaining the gaping black hole in the chest of the thug about to attack her?

Well, neither is automatically morally superior to the other, really, is she? If anything, going by a traditional idea of [Christian] morality, the woman learning to live with having been raped is probably in a morally superior position as she hasn't killed someone... I mean that it's not a question of morals, as I see it, other than personally - you'd have to decide whether you could cope with killing someone, or with having been raped, for yourself. Personally I'd probably try shooting over the chap's head first, but there you go.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:51 / 24.04.03
Well = morally good buy whatever standards you would accept as right for the purposes of this discussion

Fair enough. But policing doesn't guarantee acting "well". It is partly preventative and partly punitive. It is also not the only function of policing and law to encourage people to act "well". Resolving disputes is another function for which we might require a legal system.

What are you asking? Do people need laws to make encourage them be morally good?

Not necessarily. It might help in some cases. And some people will act immorally regardless of what you do.
 
 
Leap
13:53 / 24.04.03
Kit Kat -

If you only had the one bullet (old single shot style gun - best for avoiding prolonged gunfights whilst still being up to the task of most personal defence situations) would you shoot or would you allow yourself to be raped (I sincerely hope for your sake you would choose the former, but I would like to know your mind on this matter!).

Ganesh -

I used the term "well" so that you could apply to it whatever you deem well (in most cases here I would assume that to mean prevention of theft, rape, murder, assault for the police force and provision of a welfare state for the IR et al)......try being a little less antagonistic (unless in truth that is all you are interested in here).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:55 / 24.04.03
Dude, no offence, but if you are reading my posts again there is a lengthy demolition of the shaky logic underpinning your argument, with examples, that you may want to have a crack at.

I would humbly suggest that the questions you ask are not simple questions, nor are the concepts you are using simple concepts. after all, it was you who put "well" in scare quotes. They only seem simple to you.
 
 
Leap
13:57 / 24.04.03
Lurid -

I asked what I asked. Simple. Straightforward. No 'leapworld'. Just a simple set of questions regarding making a "good" society.
 
 
Ganesh
13:57 / 24.04.03
Leap: try actually defining some of the terms of your argument, rather than resorting to vagueness, distraction and loaded emotional terms which are supposedly self-evident (unless in truth that is all you are interested in here).
 
 
Quantum
13:58 / 24.04.03
"there is a sector of the population which is forced to live outside the social order" they would be 'criminals' then. The situations people are describing are already occurring (socially ostracised armed criminals can be found on many street corners in London for example)
Leap- I take your point that criminals will carry weapons irrespective of whether I do, but I respond More Weapons=More Wounds. If everyone has a weapon fights and arguments are much more likely to get out of hand. I'm a pacifist, but if I had a stick to hand some people I work with (and many more down the pub) would have bruised heads. Anger is more dangerous with a sword to hand. (Romeo, for example, lives in a Shakespearean Leapworld, kills someone from rage and is exiled- but he's not necessarily of bad character, nor deserves to be ostracised)
 
 
Leap
14:00 / 24.04.03
I left it open ended so as to get away from the "leapworld" thing for a while....perhaps I should post it elsewhere on here?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:00 / 24.04.03
Leap - I honestly don't know what I'd do. Probably either panic, shoot wildly and miss, or try and shoot wide to scare the attacker. I sincerely hope I never find myself in possession of a firearm of any sort.
 
 
Ganesh
14:02 / 24.04.03
Leap, if you choose not to define or acknowledge common terms or parameters, then your questions are anything but "simple".
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:02 / 24.04.03
I asked what I asked. Simple. Straightforward. No 'leapworld'. Just a simple set of questions regarding making a "good" society

The point is that it isn't simple. You seem to require yes/no answers to complex questions and object if you don't get them. I have answered your questions, just not in the way you want. You interpret this as me being difficult, when it isn't intended as such.
 
 
Quantum
14:04 / 24.04.03
oh and the questions...

i. Who here believes that in order to make people behave 'well' we must be 'policed' in some way by a specialist body (police force, Inland revenue, welfare system)?
I do. People need policing.

ii. Are these people a moral elite (who themselves do not need policing) or are they subject to the policing of "the people" (ie: the rest of us)?
They ARE people just like us, thus not a moral elite

iiib. If they are not a moral elite, but are essentially the same as us, why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?
Police are citizens granted special powers to perform their office effectively. Those powers only work if *only* police have them. It is good to have an independant arbiter in disputes, a body of people everyone (theoretically) respects as upholders of the peace.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:04 / 24.04.03
there is a sector of the population which is forced to live outside the social order" they would be 'criminals' then.

I meant the 'undeserving poor' who, in Leap's system, would not receive assistance from communities. They're not automatically criminals, but in the face of the lack of other options other than probable starvation, one suspects that they might quickly become so.
 
 
Leap
14:05 / 24.04.03
Quantum -

Leap- I take your point that criminals will carry weapons irrespective of whether I do, but I respond More Weapons=More Wounds. If everyone has a weapon fights and arguments are much more likely to get out of hand. I'm a pacifist, but if I had a stick to hand some people I work with (and many more down the pub) would have bruised heads. Anger is more dangerous with a sword to hand. (Romeo, for example, lives in a Shakespearean Leapworld, kills someone from rage and is exiled- but he's not necessarily of bad character, nor deserves to be ostracised)

I realise you are a pacifist (although you would accept the police to use violence to protect you?) and that Anger is more dangerous with a sword to hand however, crime does not drop when the populace is unarmed. Quiet the contrary in fact (predators always go for the weak).

As regards Romeo; that may be so, but in general an armed populace is a polite one (the criminals who would tend to lack self-control and be the main source of "prone to unreason" still have weapons regardless of whether we have them). Of course, decriminalising weapons does not mean you have to carry one, just that you may if you wish to.
 
 
Leap
14:08 / 24.04.03
Quantum -

But what keeps the "guards" good? Is it innate moral superiority, or is it that they are in turn watched over by "the people", and if so why are the people not able to do the police's job anyway?
 
 
Ganesh
14:13 / 24.04.03
"Criminals", as well as uniformly "lacking self-control" (and, quite possibly, being either under or overEDUCATED), are a superstitious, cowardly lot. Perhaps the LeapTopian citizens could keep them in check by dressing as bats?
 
 
Quantum
14:16 / 24.04.03
The police ARE people. To reverse your argument, if we are good enough to be police then police are good enough to be police. If they need watching, we need watching, if they don't, we don't. I believe we do need watching so they need watching, which is why there is an internal affairs department in the police force. They watch each other is the short answer (which is what you would have everyone do)
 
 
Leap
14:16 / 24.04.03
I realise now that I have stumbled into a kindergarten rather than a place for genuine discussion.

Have fun in your playground.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:18 / 24.04.03
i. Who here believes that in order to make people behave 'well' we must be 'policed' in some way by a specialist body (police force, Inland revenue, welfare system)?

I believe that we need a policing system, but not to make people 'behave well'; rather we need them to ensure that the laws of the land are kept. These laws are enacted and maintained by precendent in the courts (preferably through trial by jury), and by the representative body of the nation, i.e. Parliament. Salus populi, suprema lex. The laws of the land are not unalterable, and should in fact be flexible to keep up with changing circumstances, but the right to have recourse to them is, or should be, inalienable.

ii. Are these people a moral elite (who themselves do not need policing) or are they subject to the policing of "the people" (ie: the rest of us)?

The people who enforce the law are not an elite and are themselves subject to the laws of the land. In ensuring that the laws of the land are kept, they enact the will of the people as expressed through the representative body of the nation.

iiib. If they are not a moral elite, but are essentially the same as us, why do we need them rather than being able to act 'well' ourselves without being 'policed'?

Because individuals cannot be relied upon to put the interest of the nation as a body above their personal interest. We may behave well or badly, as we choose, within the laws of the land, but in order to maintain the government of the nation policing is necessary. It is not a uestion of moral government but of civil government.
 
 
Ganesh
14:18 / 24.04.03
More of a Conversation, really.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)101112

 
  
Add Your Reply