Emerg Services Spin Off Thread For Observations On Protests Against Law Enforcement

[RussH]

I was a civilian EMT. I have performed no service to be thanked for.

I consider an EMT as having served their community. It doesn't matter if it was a private sector job, you were still working for the greater good of your community.

 

[Anarchy]

Our military gets the call when natural disasters like that hit. Including surrounding island nations. In those situations, they're the only ones with the logistics and equipment to really help.
Surely that stuff counts as a good thing?

It does,

and it would be very difficult to argue that any individual or group of individuals never had any good outcomes, if we keep our field of view narrow enough in both time and space, that we ignore the impacts on the wider society and over a longer period of time

For example, the Pol Pot regime reduced rush hour congestion on the streets of Phnom Penh...

The first of these videos will get you up to speed on the core concept of looking wider, and the subsequent ones explore the implications of that concept in a series of practical examples.
They're only about 2 minutes each

Watch them, and I'll get back to you on why you are seeing the military in these circumstances, and why when you look wider, what they are doing might perhaps be one good outcome in very limited circumstances, but that it is certainly associated with a lot of very bad outcomes for many more people
https://youtu.be/0uj2FZ7gKdI?list=PL-ama5rVMHxFmDf5QRdPbgyDeV60FnDZo

 

[Gs172003]

Somebody posted an EMT job posting here. You know how much they start out at? 8.50. That's right. Here they start at 8.50. Paramedics make a whopping 14.00. That takes an amazing person to do that.

 

[Gs172003]

It does,

and it would be very difficult to argue that any individual or group of individuals never ha...

What would you rather? To get rid of the military and pray the world comes together all of a sudden and sings kumbaya? What is it that you realistically want?

 

[Gs172003]

There are very very evil people in this world. There are bad cops that have trigger fingers that have killed for fun. They are very few and far between. There is Isis that would love nothing more than to torture the very people that we are training and standing beside to help get rid of them. Heck Isis is so bad we don't even talk about AL quida anymore.

Meanwhile we have North Korea building nukes. That man kills people in his own danged family. He's nuts. Should we just ignore him?

What do you want?

 

[Anarchy]

who needs...

Here are some examples a lot closer to home
http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/

Terry Anderson and PJ Hill's "Not So Wild Wild West, an American Experiment in Anarcho Capitalism"
This is a .PDF of the original Essay, which was later expanded into a book. (@joeylittle it is copy-left, it isn't a pirate copy, the authors and publishers of the original journal don't believe in intellectual property)
https://mises.org/system/tdf/3_1_2_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
and the book: Dead Link Removed

Peter C Earle's coverage of Moresnet, where the Netherlands, Belgium and Prussia meet
Link Removed

Upland south east Asia
A 4 page review of James C Scott's study https://www.academia.edu/2060255/Ja...An_Anarchist_History_of_Upland_Southeast_Asia
and the book Dead Link Removed

Somalia, and the other traditionally Anarchist African cultures, the Gikuyu and the Igbo, along with other almost anarchist cultures like the Fulani, deserves at least their own thread. There is far more to them than you'll ever see hear or read on the lamestream.

An insiders introduction to how such societies work - is the Book of Judges, in your bible. To contrast with the approximately 200 years of war in the book of Kings.

It is enough to say for now that under the soviet client regime of Said Barre (that is when Somalia had a government), on most key indicators of quality of life, Somalia was at or near the bottom of the list for sub Saharan Africa.

Without a central government, Somalia has overtaken over half of the list. A remarkable pace of improvement and development. Somalia certainly has problems, not least the remnants of the Barre regime who still try to live parasitically around the former seat of the regime, Mogadishu. Elsewhere, Somalis are enjoying a growing and vibrant economy, with a notable explosion in telecoms, full mobile internet coverage, full mobile phone coverage and the lowest call prices and best call clarity in Africa. Areas like Puntland and Somaliland on the north coast are peaceful and in African terms are booming, and people are going home to those areas from Europe, America and Canada, because there are more opportunities there.

"Go to Somalia" is certainly not the trump card in a debate with an Anarchist, that many think it is. ;)

 

[Anarchy]

What would you rather? To get rid of the military and pray the world comes together all of a sudden and sings kumbaya?

In brief response to your first question, there is no reason why any worthwhile good or service cannot be produced in a consensual manner.
Some goods and services are currently produced in a coercive manner, that does not imply that they must always be produced in that manner.

and it certainly does not imply that they will not be supplied in greater variety, quantity and quality AND at lower price by none coercive producers than they currently produced by the coercive producers

There are a lot more alternatives to the current system than singing Kumbaya.

This brief essay from 1848 should get you started on the basic arguments. It'll take you about 40 minutes to read: http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/de Molinari (Gustave) - The Production of Security.pdf

What is it that you realistically want?

I want agression against a person and their property recognised for what it is - wrong

I'm not a pacifist, I'm ok with proportionate defensive violence, but much prefer a just and peaceful resolution of a dispute between the specific individuals ( a "nation" is just a group of individuals, it has no seperate existence outside of those individuals).

I'm not ok with travelling thousands of miles to drop bombs on someone's house just because he frightens me.

all I'm getting at is the simple application of interpersonal boundaries with larger groups of people.

I've got to go do some work. there are some great points coming up which I'll get back to later.

@

 

[Anarchy]

On traditional African institutions, which Somali Igbo and Gikuyu cultures represent some of the Anarchist members.

Ayittey gives a flavour in his TED talk. Ayittey's Scholarly work "indiginous African Institutions" is well worth a read - unfortunately at over $100, that will probably mean borrowing a copy from a library.

https://youtu.be/ZnepHUYFqgg

 

[joeylittle]

This is a .PDF of the original Essay, which was later expanded into a book.

Not a problem - links are never a problem; if you'd have wanted to attach the document to your post, then I would be saying 'thank you for telling me that it's copy-left'. So either way, we're good.

I want agression against a person and their property recognised for what it is - wrong

I'm not a pacifist, I'm ok with proportionate defensive violence, but much prefer a just and peaceful resolution of a dispute between the specific individuals ( a "nation" is just a group of individuals, it has no seperate existence outside of those individuals).

I'm not ok with travelling thousands of miles to drop bombs on someone's house just because he frightens me.

all I'm getting at is the simple application of interpersonal boundaries with larger groups of people.

This is maybe the best articulation I've read of what an anarchist philosophy is, when divorced from the common assumption that anarchists exist to tear things down. Not enough is ever said about the positive values in anarchy. And it does (oddly) require a certain level of idealism, I think. Because this:

the simple application of interpersonal boundaries with larger groups of people.

is not an easy thing to strive for. But when one imagines for a moment the possibility of it - it's kind of great.

There will always be bad guys. Always. And so, the notion of proportionate defensive violence (as stated in the quote above) is an important one.

@Anarchy, would you say that there's a line between proportionate and punitive? I think you would. If so, can you give an example from the last 100 years of a conflict where the utmost proportionate defense was used (something that was strong) that did not tip over into being punitive, or agenda-driven? Honest question, I'm very curious.

 

[Anarchy]

would you say that there's a line between proportionate and punitive?

That's clearly available in the Old Testament admonition; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - which was deliberately and egregiously mis understood by Ghandi.

It doesn't say that we should seek an eye for an eye, it leaves open that we can forgive or inflict a lesser retribution - if a peaceful and just settlement cannot be agreed. It is far better for everyone if a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution can be found.

but it does set a maximum, that if you do choose to go for retribution, you should not exceed

If you do exceed then you are becoming an aggressor, and could in turn be subject to a claim for tort, or, proportionate retribution in kind.

I'll cover the extension of this into larger groups in another post in a few minutes. For someone immersed in the current mainstream it usually takes a little bit of time for them to wrap their heads around it.

There are some important things to note while we are still dealing with individuals

the incentive which brings an offender / perpetrator into a court or dispute resolution process, is usually the threat of either getting dumped by their insurer (even in Somalia*, which is just one example among many of a polycentric, customary, stateless legal system, every individual is insured against claims for torts - and every just claim is compensated, even if the perpetrator absconds, was a minor or was in some way incompetent) and therefore incapable of functioning in society,

or,

The looming threat of retribution.

No one is under the illusion that monetary compensation can make the plaintiff "whole again" it just can't. If we think about our own traumas and abuse - money doesn't heal them and money doesn't undo them.

what I (personally) think that monetary compensation (stateless legal systems are all compensatory rather than punitive) represents is the price sufficeint to buy the plaintiff and their supporters/insurers/defenders off the idea of going for physical retribution that could get out of hand.

again a personal view, violent punishment is the stuff of narcs, psychopaths and abusers (which is what states and rulers ammount to). Yes, the threat of violent retribution is always there in the background of any system, but decent individuals are capable (with or without the help of wise counsel) of working out peaceful and just alternatives.
_______________________________________________________
* For an understanding of the Somali customary legal system, Check out Michael van Notten's "law of the Somalis" Dead Link Removed
Michael van Notten was a high level lawyer and legal scholar in Belgium, who went to Somalia when the Somali people dismantled the centralised state in favour of their traditional legal system, the Xeer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer Somali spelling and pronunciation similar to Spanish, so it is pronounced "Here"). He married into the Darod Clan, and travelled throughout Somalia, engaged in both studying the culture and in promoting projects such as privately funded toll roads.

The idea of a "Freeport Clan" was given to van Notten by a Somali who's identity has been lost with van Notten's untimely death (from a heart complaint).

 

[Anarchy]

If so, can you give an example from the last 100 years of a conflict where the utmost proportionate defense was used (something that was strong) that did not tip over into being punitive, or agenda-driven? Honest question, I'm very curious.

I'm coming at the question from what might be best described as a radical individualist / volountaryist viewpoint.

Only individuals think and act, and each individual is responsible for their own actions.

In that sense, a "society" or a "nation" is the collection of cooperating individuals sharing similar views and values. I'd take the Swiss Confederation as an example of that, people living near to each other, sharing some common values, but none trying to dominate or rule the others, and perhaps speaking (in Switzerland, four) different languages.

It certainly doesn't imply that "France thinks that..." or "America has warned"
In each case the thinking or warning is by an individual or a small group of individuals who agree with an individual who suggested the idea.

so in each case, there is a clearly defined individual or a small group of cooperating and explicitly agreeing individuals who are responsible for an action, or and omission.

That responsibility cannot be obfuscated by dumping it onto others who did not actively agree and take part

and there is no shirking of individual responsibility onto an imaginary role or office; for example;

an individual ordered a droning (murder). Responsibility for that act can't be obfuscated by invoking the "Office of the 'resident" or "Sovereign Immunity"

The hangman who pulled the lever, killed Saddam. that responsibility cannot be placed on "the court" or "the international community"

The judge who condemned Saddam, told the hangman to do it. As an individual the hangman would have been well within his rights as an individual to tell the judge to stuff his order where the sun never shines.


That being said
In some customary law societies (eg Medieval Iceland) a tort claim was treated like any other debt, the title to it could be transferred; it could be bought, sold given, bequeathed, inherited...

and I'm guessing that as a corollary to that, that the defendant could also sell on their position too, but I think that that would require a very clear understanding of exactly what was being sold - I can see the money and the culpability being returned to the original owner in a lot of cases.

It very rapidly gets interesting, and it is way beyond any single individual to work out where the logic goes to; Law is an emergent order, it is the creation of acting and interacting individual humans, but isn't the creation of any single individual

A creative resolution to a dispute establishes expectations for future conduct which helps avoid similar disputes occuring, and the implications will be debated.

This is nothing startling, it's simply the process of legal precedent and jurisprudence of case law, but shorn of the contamination of positive (posited) law. And it is amazing how closely such emergent legal systems come to resemble each other, whether Native American, Medieval European, Roman, Old testament book of Judges, Modern Day Somali, or Papua NewGuinea hill tribes; there are a finite number of conventions which arise within which humans can avoid conflicts while interacting and still recognising and respecting each others individuality.

The disappointing thing for a statist in this, is it doesn't ever justify total wars, or the idea that everyone within a line drawn on a map is somehow responsible or a target.

a sort of religious analogy would be a day of judgement, where each individual gets to explain their individual actions. The deity is not going to accept the excuse that "I vas only following orders, Dubya told me to do it."

 

[Sideways]

@Anarchy - it's easy to say that the humanitarian efforts of the military pale in comparison to the effort it exerts on just plain going to war. But I guess it depends on where you're coming from.

The 2004 tsunami displaced (literally) millions of people, without shelter, food, water, transport, power...If you were one of the many millions who were kept alive, who's family was kept alive, thanks to the military's relief efforts, you might put a different value on the military's humanitarian role. Those countless lives, and devastated communities, are not inconsequential. Not by any stretch of the imagination.