babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » A world without countries or governments

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A world without countries or governments
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 10 October 2008 04:27 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Warning: a bit of a rant.

Lately… I have been wondering if it is possible to live without having an individual or organization controlling my life.

I do not feel free.

There are people and organizations dictating me how to live my life. There are restrictions on my movements and activities. I have been granted citizenship to a country just because I am born here thus placing further unwanted control over me.

Is it possible to be truly free?

Note: I will likely edit this opening post later tonight.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 11 October 2008 02:26 AM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can always choose to live outside the law. Of course, the same government that restricts your movements also restricts the movements of others who might act against you. Anarchy has a tendency to degenerate over time.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
G. Pie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15576

posted 11 October 2008 05:26 AM      Profile for G. Pie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What sort of "people and organizations" are you talking about, Webgear? If people in your life are dictating the terms of your life, then you need to meet some new people. And if your job environment is oppressive, you need to find other work. Government's harder to avoid, obviously, but many people live in communities that are effectively not governed. Some of the Gulf Islands are like that.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 11 October 2008 07:14 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Webgear is in the armed forces. LOL. I have to agree, Webgear. If you're feeling a little "controlled" you might want to look at your work environment.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 11 October 2008 07:54 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Webgear, I haven't read this book, mostly because it's way over my head, but Julia Kristeva wrote a book in 1993 called "Nations Without Nationalism". Might be worth a look.

As for the general issue of individual freedom, please check your messages.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 October 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is it possible to be truly free?

Webgear, we usually try to deal with issues with a little more meat on them, here.

It is the one of the great questions of all time.

If we skip a good many centuries of the history of how people have tried to answer it, we could answer it by saying it's an ongoing compromise between the interactions of your freedoms and everyone else's.

I don't know that anyone in the history of humanity has ever thought they were getting a fair, perfect deal. Except for perhaps William Selkirk for a few years. And he seemed to dislike his complete freedom.

In trying to come to grips with it, not just esoterically, but in how it all fits with you individually, I think you have to start your journey by trying to understand, warts and all, what we, as a species are, and what makes us tick. Of course, there are no perfect answers there, either. Our understanding is, well, incomplete.


I do not think there will ever be a world without countries or governments. But, our notions of countries and governments will certainly change.

[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 11 October 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:

Is it possible to be truly free?

Of course, there is more and less and sometimes a person can move into a situation of more freedom. But no, I don't think its possible, our world being what it is now, to be truly free.

At least you know you're not free - there's some freedom there.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 October 2008 01:49 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On a more pragmatic level, I think you have to really be in touch with what you want and what you need. (not as easy as it seems-- at least for me) If you understand that, then you can start to see where it fits and doesn't fit with the people around you, and how your juristiction is politically organized and how it promotes or thwarts your wants and needs.

Funny. I was just thinking the other day how much "freer" I might be now if I had enlisted in the Armed Forces instead of enlisting in the manufacturing sector. If I'd had stayed in the military as a "lifer" I'd be a retired NCO on an indexed pension, picking up odd jobs as it suited me.

Seems better--freer-- now, than wondering every day about if the plant will close before you get to your early retirement date.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 October 2008 02:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about we just start with a country without parties and work out from there.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 October 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just thinking the other day about how a legislative body would look if we just elected independant representatives. I stopped thinking though, when I ran into the paradox of the independant party....

Seriously though, it's a worthy idea that should be explored.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 October 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lately… I have been wondering if it is possible to live without having an individual or organization controlling my life.

You could start with marriage counselling.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 October 2008 03:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I was just thinking the other day about how a legislative body would look if we just elected independant representatives. I stopped thinking though, when I ran into the paradox of the independant party....

Seriously though, it's a worthy idea that should be explored.


The detractors would almost certainly call such a body a single party state, where the state was in essence the party.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 October 2008 04:36 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

You could start with marriage counselling.



I just quoted you in the feminist forum.

yuk it up, funny boy.



From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 October 2008 04:42 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The detractors would almost certainly call such a body a single party state, where the state was in essence the party.


I was imagining something along the lines of an organization that gave technical assistance to independant candidates. Of course, they'd have to be vetted for certain things in order to get assistance. But, it wouldn't be for political ideology-- unless things like mysogyny or racism can be called a political ideology. But, it would have to be basically non-partizan in nature.

I'm not sure how far the assitance could go before it legally ventured into the realm of an official "party".

You know, my ideal image of democracy does away with elections and replaces them with representatives chosen by lot.

Elections and democracy don't mix.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 October 2008 06:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I mean that a legislative body which was not based on adversarial party system would be deemed to be a one party state, since the state itself would the sole functioning cohesive political aparatus through which organized political activity would take place. Thus it would be indistinguishable from a state where party and state were wedded together. The difference between having one party, and no parties is essentially semantic.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 11 October 2008 07:47 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Warning: a bit of a rant.

Yes and no (there will always be property taxes).

What is freedom to you? I think it is subjective. But if you mean it in the way I think you mean it, then you can't be free of government, ever, if you can't be free of business. Government exists for business.

The evolution of legislation and regulation is to corral all of us into a contrived market place where all transactions are digital and take place between regulated consumer demand and protected corporate suppliers.

To be free of the government then, is to be as self-sufficient where one can, and trade in cash and/or barter where one can't.

In other words, one must be free of sanctioned trade to be free of corporate management of the economy and, finally, free of government.

Do you want to be that free?

[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 12 October 2008 06:50 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I mean that a legislative body which was not based on adversarial party system would be deemed to be a one party state, since the state itself would the sole functioning cohesive political aparatus through which organized political activity would take place. Thus it would be indistinguishable from a state where party and state were wedded together. The difference between having one party, and no parties is essentially semantic.

I'm not sure. Maybe it could be spun that way, but I think a legilative body that is made up of independant representatives whose votes are not whipped is different from the experience of one party states where the representatives votes are whipped.

Sometimes literally.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 12 October 2008 01:25 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:

Lately… I have been wondering if it is possible to live without having an individual or organization controlling my life.

Yes. Find a suitable deserted island. Otherwise, you're kind of stuck with other people.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 12 October 2008 07:09 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Warning, a bit of my own rant:

The role of the state (and you can tell one is in debate club when he uses those 5 words) and indeed the entire raison d'etre of the state is to protect some of its citizens. In the ideal egalitaraian democracy I want everyone to strive for, it is to protect all of its citizens equally. In an aristocracy, it is to protect a powerful group of citizens. In an absolute dictator ship: to protect one man.

So sorry - no - you cannot be entirely "free". For instance, in the most extreme case, you do not have the freedom to arbitrarily execute who you want, and I don't want you - or anyone else - to hold that power as an individual.

You do not have the freedom to hunt or mine in certain protected lands and therefore endanger vulnerable species, reduce biodiversity, and by proxy, endanger the rest of human civilization (even by an infinitesimal fraction)

I too, kind of hate the fact that, for the most part, we don't get to choose what country we live in and what laws we are governed by. But I do think I, personally, caught a break by living in Canada. We have freedoms many countries don't have: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to democratically choose what government we want to live under, and influence others who share the burden of making that decision, Freedom to befriend and fall in love with and marry who we want (as long as the other consents, of course)

Democracy and democratic government is a massive, ugly and beautiful compromise that allows most citizens to live under tolerable conditions. It also sets up an environment where we can freely advocate for those who we believe live in intolerable conditions.

Its not perfect, its far from fucking perfect, but its the closest thing we have to it, from the perspective of the broad society.

And by the way, I'm not saying "you should be happy you ungrateful bastard". I'm just providing my own best answer to your question. Try to find something to do for a while that makes you happy (not drugs), and if that fails, perhaps see a therapist.

[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 12 October 2008 07:42 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah ...

quote:
"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda".

Chomsky

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 12 October 2008 10:19 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was just thinking the other day about how a legislative body would look if we just elected independant representatives. I stopped thinking though, when I ran into the paradox of the independant party....

Seriously though, it's a worthy idea that should be explored.


Nunavut has been exploring the idea since 1999. Their are no parties, the MLA's (they might be called something else) are elected independently, the Premier is elected by the Legislature and the whole show is run on a consensus model.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 14 October 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can be free however freedom is not possible so long as private property exists.
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 October 2008 04:19 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Try to find something to do for a while that makes you happy (not drugs), and if that fails, perhaps see a therapist.

Yes, the therapist will fix you up with the drugs to make you think you are happy.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 14 October 2008 06:29 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, we can hardly ask, "can we be really free?" until we first ask, "what do we mean by freedom?" What do you mean when you use this word, Webgear? What sort of freedom are you after?

For instance, Taoists believe that true freedom is surrendering to "the way", the mystical patterns and forces that govern/compose all creation. In this way you are "free" from the confusions, desires, and insecurities of the human race. Of course, in the classical western sense of having unlimited powers and options, you wouldn't be "free" at all by this model, since all your actions would be in perfect integration with the Tao, and as such basically predetermined. Of course, you would still be choosing this path with every moment, but you see my point.

I suspect you're talking about the classical western sense of freedom, the freedom of the individual to make any choice available to them, without external coercion, and of course, as others have said, there's only one way to get this, which is total desertion of human society. There are still places on this planet, polluted and overindustrialised as it is, where a guy can eke out a bare subsistence from the land and disappear from the radar of nations, their laws, and their various bodies of enforcement. Of course, you would live an incredibly simple life, "free" from all the accomplishments of civilisation, or the rewards of human interaction. Perhaps it's a logical equation that by increasing our freedom to make the choices available to us, we must severely limit those available choices. The lone wilderness survivor has very few decisions to make, though all of them are "free" in the sense of involving no coercion.

But then, that's not really true either, is it? You would be free from human coercion, but far more subject to the dictates of nature than a person who chose to stay in society and fly under the radar in their own way, say by taking a low-responsibility job and having few ambitions. In fact, you'd spend pretty much all your time negotiating with your environment for simple survival. All your actions would be determined by this, while part-time video store clerks would have to put in their twenty hours a week or so, but could do as they like with the rest of their time, within the limits of their meager paycheques.

My point is that there's no such thing as absolute freedom, and if there was it would probably be a nightmare. If life was like a holo-deck where we got everything we wanted instantly, it would quickly lose all meaning. Life is all about a compromise of freedoms. This is the basis of all interaction. Hell, the reason animal life exists on earth is because certain simple cells formed a symbiotic relationship with other cells to create more complex cells. It locked them into an arrangement that they couldn't get out of, but it made them a more powerful unit, and hence a more successful organism.

So to my mind, hankering after "freedom", as some abstract notion makes no sense. You have to intelligently negotiate with the freedoms you possess, to achieve the freedoms that you're after. Discern what it is you want, what you're willing to give up, and make society an offer. No doubt it will be rejected, as first offers often are, and society will make a counteroffer, etc. I think happy people are people who can accept this reality and manage to create a tolerable truce of freedoms within the structure they are part of. We're lucky enough to live in a vaguely diverse and democratic society, which is more than most people get, so a fair amount of negotiation is open to us, and most people, if not too outrageous in their ambitions, can find such a truce if they work at achieving it.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 October 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Webgear, we usually try to deal with issues with a little more meat on them, here.


[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


OK...how about this...is it possible to get a good cheeseburger for free? That's a question with meat on it(unless you're in McDonald's, of course.)


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca