|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 5, 2006 18:27:26 GMT -5
You're bizarre, Sagas! (I like that in a person.)
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 5, 2006 20:35:17 GMT -5
"I kept looking for someone to make a difference, and then I realized that I was someone." I heard this on the radio in an ad a few minutes ago and thought it quite excellent. - NonE What was it for? My guess would be some government sponsored or funded or supported program. To quote from the film "Bruce Almighty": BE THE MIRACLE! ;D Also Ghandhi said "BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT [to see in the world/others to be/?]" or something like that... And the gub keeps talkin' about an Army Of One... Hey soldier, you've been drafted into this War On Lies  |
|
|
|
Post by gjflanker on Jan 6, 2006 2:23:47 GMT -5
So, still, the question I originally asked is, how are decisions made in a voluntary society? If there is a poll, and the majority opinion rules, then there is a democracy. If we all have to come to consensus, then its something else. I don't know what the name would be. Do we become a member of a voluntary society? Submitting an application to join this or that community and promising to abide by their rules on pain of being expelled? This actually doesn't sound half-bad to me. Nobody forces me to join group a, b, or c, but I decide upon their various merits to join one of them or none of them. Darren is asking for our opinions, but to what purpose? There is an implication that if there is a majority of people thinking one way, then we will be asked to abide by that majority opinion. It would carry no force since Marc is the ultimate arbiter of this forum (which is why I likened it to a monarchy earlier), but the implication is there because of the conditioning we have been imbued with to think that 'majority rules'. Just thinkin' out loud.  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 6, 2006 10:41:44 GMT -5
GJ, please go and look up the thread on Somali Customary Law, then look at a couple of the articles that I linked to. They had such a society and it is described there just how it works. And everything is voluntary. It is really an interesting, and fairly simple, concept. - NonE By the way, Darren had posted a comment in the Super Quotes thread. I had noticed in the past that this thread had remained pretty free of commentary and only had actual quotes. I thought that it was nice that there was one place where the quotes were all put together so you could go look at them without getting lost in a bunch of discussions. So what I did was to write a private message to Darren, explaining my thinking and commenting to him that it might be better to keep the commentary in a separate thread so as not to polute the Super Quotes thread. Darren disagreed with me but thought it would be interesting to see how others felt on the issue, and so he posted the poll. The bottom line is that this board is under Marc's control and he has the final say on what will be left up and what he will take down. But just because he has that power does not mean that consideration for the likes and wishes of the others in this voluntary community are not without benefit. You can do any thing you like here, GJ, and I have no say at all. However, I am perfectly free to state my wishes, and if you consider my thoughts worth while and care about enhancing the sense of community in the board, you might lean towards doing what I want if there is no important reason not to. There are lots of different types of fast food on the market, or brands of cigarettes, or types of music. I don't understand why you think that there must be a decision as to picking one thing that everyone must agree on and then elimiating everything else. Life doesn't work that way. YOUR life doesn't work that way. Why is this not simple? Just look around you. Do you only read one website? Only eat one type of vegetable? Only wear one color of clothing? Read the same book over and over and over...? Also you might find this article by Butler Shaffer to be helpful... - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by gjflanker on Jan 6, 2006 13:56:03 GMT -5
NonE, Thanks for the lengthy response. I've read the posts and articles you mentioned (doesn't mean I understood it all or have internalized everything yet! ), but thanks. I didn't mean to be challenging with my questions (perhaps just playing the devil's advocate a bit, though), and I get the idea of voluntaryism. I do value your's and everyone else's thoughts on this forum, else I wouldn't be reading them and posting responses. Nor, finally, do I mean to suggest that anyone here isn't free to do as they wish or that my opinion matters more than anyone else's. As to this questions, "I don't understand why you think that there must be a decision as to picking one thing that everyone must agree on and then elimiating everything else.", I don't. It's just that in any society, there must be some form of making decisions, don't you think? Even if it is that everyone makes up their own minds to do what they want to do. Hence my solicitation of your opinion (and anyone else who cares to respond) regarding how a voluntary society would make a decision. I'm assuming this is a voluntary society that would be created at some point in the future and that the decisions we're talking about are societal/group decisions. The Somali society provides a model, but who would decide? Would there even BE a mechanism for group decisions? Would there be ground rules for membership in the society? When would people decide to be a member, i.e. if they were born into the society, would they automatically become members or would they voluntarily join at some set age or demonstration of compentancy? Would it be possible to terminate someone's membership in the society? Who would make the decision and by what mechanism? These are the questions that I ponder when I read the posts on this forum and listen to Marc's show. I need to read more carefully perhaps, and begin to develop my own answers, but I am truly interested in the opinions of everyone here. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 6, 2006 14:38:40 GMT -5
First off, I suggest that you consider that "society" is not an entity. It is an aggregation. This may be a hard idea you wrap your mind around. If it IS hard, I suggest that you try really working on trying to understand that, as I consider the concept to be crucial and perhaps may be the sticking point here for you.
Now...in THIS society, Marc can, as owner, simply block you. He is not speaking for the "society" but simply as the owner of access to this bit of software. More importantly to the question in general is that if all of the members, or most of the members simply decided that you were not worth dealing with and simply quit responding to your posts, then you would effectively no longer be a member, even though you might continue to post here. This would not be a central decision (as would Marc's shutting down your connection link) but would just as effectively if not MORE effectively terminate your "membership" in this society.
You are only a "member" of a "society" as long as a sufficient number of the "members" find you worthwhile to transact with on some level. It matters not at all if you have a gold plated membership card granting you all of the privileges of membership in a society if NO ONE in that group is willing to have anything to do with you.
Think on the concept that "society" is an aggregation of the members, not an entity.
The "society" exists in the minds of the members, not elsewhere. As someone else here said recently (apologies for my propensity to focus on the ideas and not the authorship), regardless of the rulers making laws, if the people continue to behave just the same as they did before the law was "created" then ... is it a law, or just the lunatic rantings of a fool?
Sure, a group of you and your buddies can (as just happened a few days ago by the Taliban) decide that teaching girls is against the rules of your "society" and chop the head off the teacher, thus ending that educational process for the moment. Does that mean that the "society" decided this? What about all of the parents who were sending their little girls to be taught by that teacher? Aren't they also members of that "society?" So... society, didn' t decide. Part of that group of people claimed to speak for "society" and violently enforced their wishes on the others. "Society" decided nothing.
My thoughts at the moment anyway...
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by gjflanker on Jan 6, 2006 15:00:58 GMT -5
"First off, I suggest that you consider that "society" is not an entity. It is an aggregation." Excellent! I just re-read a couple of the articles on Somali customary law and I get exactly what you mean. And you're right, I was thinking of society as an entity vs. an aggregation or collection of people. And of course, in a free market society, the relationships and customs amongst the various groups that would arise would be fairly complex and developed over time, constantly evolving and changing, not as the result of some corporate head/organization, but due to the vast numbers of everyday interactions amonst people. Cool. I like it when the light bulb pops on over my head!  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 6, 2006 15:04:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 8, 2006 1:35:56 GMT -5
Hmm. This is really sleazy! I just came here to add another vote to the good-guys side (since no body else seems to want to play in Darren's playground!) and the stupid thing won't let me. Seems you're only allowed one vote per person in this silly world of Marc's. Ain't gonna win no elections THAT way!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by gjflanker on Jan 8, 2006 9:27:51 GMT -5
Seems you're only allowed one vote per person in this silly world of Marc's. Ain't gonna win no elections THAT way! - NonE Hey! You know it don't matter how many times you vote, its how many times your vote gets counted! At least the commies were up front about things... |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 8, 2006 14:00:24 GMT -5
*slaps forehead* oy vey, what have I started here... |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 10, 2006 16:14:45 GMT -5
quoteth Darren:
Takes one to know one, huh?!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 10, 2006 18:07:47 GMT -5
quoteth Darren: Takes one to know one, huh?! - NonE I'm not even gonna *respond* to that... Oh, wait, argh  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 10, 2006 18:11:52 GMT -5
Excuse me Darren. I think you may have taken that differently than I meant it. I didn't mean YOU, I meant that Lincoln was a man who failed the test of power.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 10, 2006 18:31:01 GMT -5
Excuse me Darren. I think you may have taken that differently than I meant it. I didn't mean YOU, I meant that Lincoln was a man who failed the test of power. - NonE Yes, he was quite an interesting... "character" ;D |
|
