The Norwegian army will not be taking me away

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yeah, possessions are "things that we like to have", whereas property is something used by capitalists to exploit the working class.

We prefer to call that the Means of Productions comrade.

But they've always had differnet meanings. Otherwise, the 'propertied class' would be anyone with a pair of shoes...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
We prefer to call that the Means of Productions comrade.

But they've always had differnet meanings. Otherwise, the 'propertied class' would be anyone with a pair of shoes...

Many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property

Don't you understand how stupid this is?

[W]

Since I've killed this thread anyway, can't you start a new one?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
Since I've killed this thread anyway, can't you start a new one?

Norway should call their army the navy seals lol


:(

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Norway should call their army the navy seals lol

Why, we already have seal hunters?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Don't you understand how stupid this is?

Not really. I mean, yeah obviously you can draw the saw type example out to a silly extreme (nationalisation of saws, etc). But so what? Under capitalism, a saw can either be a "company saw", or a "personal saw" for tax purposes, for instance. Is that contradiction likely to destroy western society anytime soon?

It's like saying that a man is a father to his kids, an employee to his boss, an artist to his fans, etc, etc. Defining the same object in different ways by it's relationship to other things is fairly standard, isn't it?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Not really. I mean, yeah obviously you can draw the saw type example out to a silly extreme (nationalisation of saws, etc). But so what? ?

Its intrinsically dishonest. Why not just say "property and ownership are nothing more than social fictions. Under anarcho-syndicalism, we will allow you to possess the objects we want to let you have, on the condition that you dont use them in any ways with which we disapprove."?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Its intrinsically dishonest. Why not just say "property and ownership are nothing more than social fictions. Under anarcho-syndicalism, we will allow you to possess the objects we want to let you have, on the condition that you dont use them in any ways with which we disapprove."?

By 'we' I of couse dont mean the government (because governments dont exist under anarcho-syndicalsm), but simply those members of the commune who are in charge of resource distribution, upholding the law and enforcing possession rights through use of a monopoly on force.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Its intrinsically dishonest. Why not just say "property and ownership are nothing more than social fictions. Under anarcho-syndicalism, we will allow you to possess the objects we want to let you have, on the condition that you dont use them in any ways with which we disapprove."?

Because that isn't even what we believe? You can posses anything you want - or rather, anything that is posessable (um?). For practical purposes, I wouldn't maintain a difference between a property saw or posession saw.

You can't own part of the planet (since no-one exists to sell it), you can't "own" ideas, and you can't own people. Everything else, knock yourself out. Fundamentally, you can do what you want, so long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others. Maintaining some delusion that you own 90% of the planet and no-one can walk on it without your permission is fine, so long as you can get others to go along with it. I just don't see why you can use physical violence to enforce this delusion on those that don't follow.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
monopoly on force.

Remember, I support legalised vigilantism, so I've already struck a blow on the monopoly on force!

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Because that isn't even what we believe? You can posses anything you want - or rather, anything that is posessable (um?). For practical purposes, I wouldn't maintain a difference between a property saw or posession saw.

You can't own part of the planet (since no-one exists to sell it), you can't "own" ideas, and you can't own people. Everything else, knock yourself out. Fundamentally, you can do what you want, so long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others. Maintaining some delusion that you own 90% of the planet and no-one can walk on it without your permission is fine, so long as you can get others to go along with it. I just don't see why you can use physical violence to enforce this delusion on those that don't follow.

You mean should not can. No matter what utopia comes about, I can most likely still protect what I consider mine.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
You mean should not can. No matter what utopia comes about, I can most likely still protect what I consider mine.

Oh, of course. Can in that context was "can justifiably", apologies for the short-hand.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Oh, of course. Can in that context was "can justifiably", apologies for the short-hand.

So we agree then, and we'll meet on the battlefield

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Because that isn't even what we believe?

I'm strugging to see the difference. Your ownership of a 'possession' will be revoked if you happen to use it in one of the ways which have been declared to turn it into 'property'.

You can posses anything you want - or rather, anything that is posessable (um?). For practical purposes, I wouldn't maintain a difference between a property saw or posession saw.

theres no essential difference whatsoever between a handsaw and an industrial saw, such as you'd find in a factory.

You can't own part of the planet (since no-one exists to sell it)

So how do I own my house and garden? If I want to knock down my house and build a factory on the exact same piece of land (I'd sleep under one of the machines), what would be the difference?

you can't "own" ideas, and you can't own people.

I dont understand why paying someone to perform a task for you is 'owning' them. What exact principle does "paying someone to use a saw for my own profit" breach?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I dont understand why paying someone to perform a task for you is 'owning' them. What exact principle does "paying someone to use a saw for my own profit" breach?

Sorry, I think I've used confusing terms. When I said "You can't own other people" I was talking about outlawing slavery. Not the practice of paying wages in exchange for labour, but of owning other peoples bodies in a permanent, binding fashion.

There is no difference between an industrial saw and a domestic saw, yes. Neither would there be any need for a distinction, as I've explained.

You wouldn't own the house, as I've explained _many_ times before, but a covenant would exist between all members of a given community that x plot of land would be allocated to house Mr Gordon Ross Esq. The exact form this covenant would take would obviously be up to the people involved, of course.

The type of housing agreement I'd generally think would be common would make factory building difficult - not because of ideological or economic reasons, but simply the increased noise, pollution, etc which would affect the "quiet enjoyment" of other peoples homes as per existing laws. But if this was a reasonable adjustment, yes, you could certainly build a factory on the land. It would never be your land however.

I fail to see how all of this would be necessary since you could quite easily just apply for a piece of industrial land and build a factory on it. Depending on the agreement you had, you (I presume) could build what you like in this factory and sell it to whomever you wish in a private arrangement, so long as you kept within the limitations of the lease. Just like now, basically.

p.s. Did you get my PM on the 11th of August?

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Comedy "Hitler may have been a bad man but at least he made the trains run on time" response.

I suppose I should've made it clearer, the police are not treading on me. You honestly believe things would be better with no police force?


Of course, that would allow me to come into your house and shoot you, which would make me feel a lot better, so maybe there's something to that.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Scoot951
Of course, that would allow me to come into your house and shoot you, which would make me feel a lot better, so maybe there's something to that.

So you're saying the only thing stopping you from murdering other people is criminal punishment? That strikes me a little odd.

The thing which keeps me from being murdered isn't the police. It's the fact that no-one wants to kill me. The people who _do_ want to go round killing their enemies seem to do so anyway. They have police in South Africa (they all have guns too) yet there are loads of murders. So it's not a case of police = no crime, no-police = collapse of civilisation.

p.s. No-one is advocating abolishing the police and not replacing it with anything. That kind of goes without saying.

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So you're saying the only thing stopping you from murdering other people is criminal punishment? That strikes me a little odd.

The thing which keeps me from being murdered isn't the police. It's the fact that no-one wants to kill me. The people who _do_ want to go round killing their enemies seem to do so anyway. They have police in South Africa (they all have guns too) yet there are loads of murders. So it's not a case of police = no crime, no-police = collapse of civilisation.

p.s. No-one is advocating abolishing the police and not replacing it with anything. That kind of goes without saying.

Not the only thing, but if I knew I could kill anyone I wanted and no one would stop me I'd be tempted. And I'd bet SA police are not the world's best.



And T&F is advocating exactly that if I'm reading him right - starting off with saying no one should join the police and then comparing the police force to Nazis there.

[Ärketrollmannen]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
15,000 is well enought to wreak havoc in a country without a maintained army/special forces.

And while we are at it, sweeden beeing pacifists, but still keeping an army. Why?

I am actually on your side in this. But i believe you made a few mistakes and jsut wanted to correct you

Originally posted by Ärketrollmannen
I am actually on your side in this. But i believe you made a few mistakes and jsut wanted to correct you

They where general ranting. I know they are nowhere near the numbers of millions nor even near half a million. I know we speak the same cause mate.

[SbOlly]

The TRUE cause!

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
The thiing is that regardless of whether there was an official police force, there would be mnay factors preventing you killing someone else. Now can we divorce this for a moment from my reccomendations and just presuppose a hypothetical society without police: Right now if you killed someone then that persons family and friends for starters would make alot of effort to avenge his death. Furthermore the community you lived in would be alerted to the fact that there was some bugger wandering around killing people and I should imagine that that they would make efforts to discover the killer. Now obviously if you had committed the perfect crime, then no one would catch you, but I believe that would be the case under any system. However if brazenly walked into a bar, shot someone in the face and then walked around smugly telling everyone how you did it, the community as a whole might express destress and revultion at that behaviour. You may have killed who you like but at the very least no one will talk to you or trust you ever again.

Ha! Do you realize just how many crimes go unsolved, and that's with a well-trained and well-funded police force? If a guy nabs some chick from a park, rapes her and slices her thoat, her family would have 0 chance of ever finding out who did it. And it doesn't even have to be murder, simple robbery, vandalism, arson, etc. It wouldn't need to be the perfect crime at all, all you would have to do is make sure none of the witnesses survived.


When you want to 're-define' the police force, what would you define it as? A group of people in uniforms who don't actually have the authority to do anything?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by W
There can be drastic local changes, coupled with a few minor changes internationally, that could put our nation in danger.

This shows a high level of unrealism regarding how a potential invasion could come about.

The only reason that the rest of the west would not defend Norway should it be invaded by an agressive power was if they were incapapable or unwilling.

So we can presume that either the west has fundamentally changed in it's direction internationally, probably to some sort of neo-imperialism, and/or most of it has collapsed into some sort of anarchy, or been conquered itself.

In either case, there will certainly be a total rejection of the liberal values inherent in the present international system.

Thusly, trying to preserve any idea of present Norwegian values in such a climate would be a ridiculous notion. Norway would either have to accomodate the new order to some degree, or be completely conquered by it. In either case, the idea we have of Norway now is gone.

Trying to defend against such a change would be only motivated by ridiculous nationalistic romanticism and would be as futile as it would be uneccesarily bloody.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
1. Actually it's not, it's pointless arguing against facts, not value judgements. That's what we have been doing for the last few hours.

You presented me with a philosophical justification for your beliefs which I personally rejected. Facts or lack of is irrelevant to that particular issue.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
2. Hmmm, economically we did have a better system, you are right, but it had many flaws

It was better as a system than what we have now, if we are to go by relative levels of employment, growth, and even social equality.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
and is not the solution to today's problems.

Why not?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Returning to the original line of enquiry, I think if you want to say that thiings would have been OK if it weren't for Thatcher would be to ignore the global aspect of our economy.

The international economics are irrelevant. Thatcher et al destroyed a political consensus when it was most certainly down, but it was not out.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
3. Well it depends how you measure prosperity. There is the Phillips curve which indicates that where yuo have low inflation you have high unempoyment. Clearly if you are measuring a rising standard of living for all then that would not be a socially backward society and would be in prosperity. I think if we look at rising GDP's in the 50's and 60's that ignores the fact that alot of peopel were left behind, they have been invisible to statisticians, but they were there.

So now we have invisible people that were oppressed by an economic system, but 'hiding' from the statisticians.

I thought the economically oppressed where suposed to be totally vocal and obvious under your analysis?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Clearly oppressing a minority group might well help national prosperity as has been seen in any imperial country and in America.

So?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Social progress is rarely handed down but is won through fierce struggle from the grass roots.

It's a bi-polar business. Parties and orgnisations that ultimately affect change are only composed of their constituent members, but a political will without a political means is a blunt one. Principles must be combined with orgnisation.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
4. Congratulations if you are saying you are not a capitalist,

I am a Social Democrat.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
what do you want? A cookie?

There's nothing heroic in simple principles.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tactitus
It wasn't so inaccurate just a few years ago. During the cold war, Norway was considered a likely Soviet objective in the event of a hot war (it's deep-water fjords being ideal bases for Soviet submarines).

The pre-requisite for it being a target could only be a hot war between NATO and Warsaw. Which goes back to my MAD point.

Originally posted by Tactitus
The problem with that line of reasoning is that major shifts in the status quo often start out looking like minor shifts and sometimes aren't recognized as major shifts until much later.

They are only not realised as such by people without the neccesary perpective on the matters. It is wrong to think that they just creep up and pounce. They are gradual, but obvious structural changes in the international order. Whatever the response is to them is determined by whatever perspective is subsequently adopted.

Norway had two (Large, and powerful) totalitarian neighbours on it's borders or within it's immediate region by 1933, with other un-democratic states nearby. The two totalitarian states were both aggressive states. Defence by sympathetic nations was not guranteed. This was all obvious to anyone who was not in international denial.

And again, go back to my above points. A hypothetical invasion can only be based around a scenario that is almost wholly apocalyptic, whereas it wasn't in the 1930's.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It was better as a system than what we have now, if we are to go by relative levels of employment, growth, and even social equality.

Out of those three factors, I'd only rate social equality as important. Growth? Growth is cool and all, but what does it mean by itself? Developing countries have the highest growth, does that make them the best countries?

Employment is obviously great too, but having thousands of people in pretty awful manual labour isn't exactly the best thing ever. We've got low unemployment now, but what of the quality of the jobs people are doing?

Much better to look at the standard of living of the people involved. The standard of housing for instance was pretty poor for tens of thousands of people in the 60's and 70's with high-rise flats being the government answer.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Out of those three factors, I'd only rate social equality as important. Growth? Growth is cool and all, but what does it mean by itself? Developing countries have the highest growth, does that make them the best countries?

Employment is obviously great too, but having thousands of people in pretty awful manual labour isn't exactly the best thing ever. We've got low unemployment now, but what of the quality of the jobs people are doing?

Much better to look at the standard of living of the people involved. The standard of housing for instance was pretty poor for tens of thousands of people in the 60's and 70's with high-rise flats being the government answer.

This all goes back to the social/economic thing.

Obviously, high growth and full employment are not truely indicative of the underlying social/economic relationships, but this point is rather moot in this case, where working and living standards grew tremendously in the period; look at the Macmillan "You've never had it so good" remark, which, was actually fairly substantiated.

The Housing issue is also not fully relevant, being more in the social sphere than the economic, although the two are obviously closely related in some respects; the truely monstrous high-rise blocks et al were in any case started in the 60's, and economic furit had bore throughout the whole of the 1950's, for instance. It also doesn't completely relate to the governing economic management philosophy of the time.

[W]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
This shows a high level of unrealism regarding how a potential invasion could come about.

That's your judgement, based on incomplete information. Just because you can't imagine a realistic scenario where our country could be under the threat of invasion and still be worth defending, doesn't mean there is no such situation.

The only reason that the rest of the west would not defend Norway should it be invaded by an agressive power was if they were incapapable or unwilling.

There you go taking things for granted again. First of all "the west" as such is an illusion. Unless you can quallify what you mean, I'll just dismiss the term out of hand. Second of all, the nations now allies might become enemies. If the US went to war against Norway, who would defend us?

So we can presume that either the west has fundamentally changed in it's direction internationally, probably to some sort of neo-imperialism, and/or most of it has collapsed into some sort of anarchy, or been conquered itself.

It only takes isolationism. If events happened slightly differently, the US might never have participated in WW2

In either case, there will certainly be a total rejection of the liberal values inherent in the present international system.

Values need not be dismissed, all it takes is for people not to act upon them.

Thusly, trying to preserve any idea of present Norwegian values in such a climate would be a ridiculous notion. Norway would either have to accomodate the new order to some degree, or be completely conquered by it. In either case, the idea we have of Norway now is gone.

So, say for instance that I fight to protect monarchy. How will this revolutionary world change you say is necesarry make monarchy impossible? Or how about if I fight for the right of citizens to own guns. How will world change cause a gun ban, and how will allowing an invasion to happen enable us to keep our guns? Do you think even a total and immediate surrender would mean the occupants would allow us to stay armed?

Trying to defend against such a change would be only motivated by ridiculous nationalistic romanticism and would be as futile as it would be uneccesarily bloody.

Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. If I feel it is necesarry to kill people out of the principle that some other government cannot start ruling over our people without our agreement, what does your opinion on necessity matter? I've outlined several motivators for fighting for our country other than "ridiculous nationalistic romanticism" whatever that means.

[Nodrog]

read less heinlein plz

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
read less heinlein plz

I never read Heinlein. I rarely need or get anything out of reading things twice.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by W
That's your judgement, based on incomplete information. Just because you can't imagine a realistic scenario where our country could be under the threat of invasion and still be worth defending, doesn't mean there is no such situation.

Present me with one?

Originally posted by W
There you go taking things for granted again. First of all "the west" as such is an illusion. Unless you can quallify what you mean, I'll just dismiss the term out of hand.

The west, as in almost total consensus on how democratic nations treat agression, each other, etc, for the last fifty years or so, see NATO, etc.

Originally posted by W
Second of all, the nations now allies might become enemies. If the US went to war against Norway, who would defend us?

So you're seriously suggesting that there is a chance that Norway

You appear to have even less of a grasp of international political realities than I first thought.

Originally posted by W
So, say for instance that I fight to protect monarchy. How will this revolutionary world change you say is necesarry make monarchy impossible? Or how about if I fight for the right of citizens to own guns. How will world change cause a gun ban, and how will allowing an invasion to happen enable us to keep our guns? Do you think even a total and immediate surrender would mean the occupants would allow us to stay armed?

You said you would fight for present Norwegian values. I took this as democracy, liberty, etc, which, should any invasion of Norway by an agressive power be a likelihood, would be doomed as practical values that could be defended.

You don't seem to realise that the international system that prevents the Norwegian invasion scenario is inexorably tied to such values. It's downfall would mean the ultimate downfall of such values.

Originally posted by W
I've outlined several motivators for fighting for our country other than "ridiculous nationalistic romanticism" whatever that means.

It means you have little grasp of logic, moderation or pragmatism in your views on this.

[W]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Present me with one?

I'm not sure I can. And even if I could, it would be tons of work to detail a scenario enough that you would be unable to find some detail to nitpick on. Even if you agreed the scenario I'd make were plausible, you'd declare it unlikely, and my counterargument that it would be just one of many possibilities that adds up would be met with demands of more work.

Face it, you're not ready to accept what I'm saying, even if it's true. You'd rather hold on to your ideological worldview.

The west, as in almost total consensus on how democratic nations treat agression, each other, etc, for the last fifty years or so, see NATO, etc.

Yes, cause there's been no disagreement in fora like the UN, total agreement on how trade is to occur, and no open disagreements, god forbid, on millitary actions. (most disagreement and deals are worked out outside of public fora)

So you're seriously suggesting that there is a chance that Norway
You appear to have even less of a grasp of international political realities than I first thought.

Something is missing here...

You said you would fight for present Norwegian values. I took this as democracy, liberty, etc, which, should any invasion of Norway by an agressive power be a likelihood, would be doomed as practical values that could be defended.

Shows your ignorance again. Yes, liberty is one of the things I'd fight for. But loss of liberties is not an on-off thing. I can't imagine the situation where there'd be nothing to fight for, where there wasn't someones freedom that could be increased by armed resistance against oppressors.

And I couldn't call democracy a typical norwegian value. We're not a democracy, not even in the abstract sense of the people holding the power or making important policy choices on a national level.

You don't seem to realise that the international system that prevents the Norwegian invasion scenario is inexorably tied to such values. It's downfall would mean the ultimate downfall of such values.

Not at all. You're too idealistic in your thinking, assuming we "western" people are so much higher than our ancestors/predecessors or people in other places, and would never take advantage of eachother.

The truth is that wars are prevented by force.

It means you have little grasp of logic, moderation or pragmatism in your views on this.

See a flaw of logic? Point it out.
Moderation? If you were offered 50k$, you'd say "oh, I'll just take 20k"? Moderation is not an all-good, and is value dependant. Our values obviously differ.
And I'm very pragmatic. I do what seems to work, and dispose of silly idealism.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by W
Face it, you're not ready to accept what I'm saying, even if it's true. You'd rather hold on to your ideological worldview.

I don't think I'm the one lacking a true perspective on reality.

There isn't any such plaubile scenario that involves Norway being invaded by a hostile force; your total inability to think up such a scenario highlights just how implausible it is, not to mention your ignorance of the subject in general.

Originally posted by W
Yes, cause there's been no disagreement in fora like the UN, total agreement on how trade is to occur, and no open disagreements, god forbid, on millitary actions. (most disagreement and deals are worked out outside of public fora

This is all totally irrelevant. The point is that for the last 50 years, we have had a mutually upheld system in the west whereby western nations are bound to respond when one of their number is attacked.

Whether this is realpolitik in action or the basis of a civilised liberal international order is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there, it is not going anyway, and it's the underlying reality of international realtions in the west. There is no basis in ideology or self-interest that would compel them not to respond.

Your failure to understand this simple idea totally pollutes any chance of you 'getting in right' anywhere else in your argument.

You may as well try and argue about the repurcusions of a Chinese invasion of Russia or some other such event.

It's that ridiculous. Truely.

Thus, Norway is going to be defended by outside western forces should it be attacked, hence no need either in political or military spheres for Norwegian military.

Originally posted by W
Something is missing here...

The result of limited and hurried access, etc.

Originally posted by W
Shows your ignorance again. Yes, liberty is one of the things I'd fight for. But loss of liberties is not an on-off thing. I can't imagine the situation where there'd be nothing to fight for, where there wasn't someones freedom that could be increased by armed resistance against oppressors.

So what is worth figthing for, and why would it not be a totally worthless endevaour in such a secnario as the above one?

Originally posted by W
The truth is that wars are prevented by force.

And?

Originally posted by W
And I'm very pragmatic.

I do what seems to work, and dispose of silly idealism.

I don't know why you keep banging on about idealism, because you're the one who has a clouded, unrealistic viewpoint on this.