Folks,
Lee Harris wrote the following article about the natural outcome of anarchy.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/090805D.html

It is a short article.
Ron

To save this post from being binned’ as it has nothing to do with education, I will turn it around.
First, look at what it says at the end of the ‘article’:

If you are a producer or reporter who is interested in receiving more information about this article or the author, please email your request to interview@techcentralstation.com.

Sounds like a Pedagogue to me. Also, I noticed that most of the trouble occurred due to the ‘caging’ of people in that domed sports centre place with no privacy, sanitation, or anything but boredom, sound like a school I once went to…

Meanwhile, the bottom of the pile poor and ignorant dumbed downed citicens who had escaped, or rather not bothered with the Govenrment solution, were doing just fine as born again hunter gatherers, getting what they needed and helping each other out as best they could, despite Government troops shooting people – sorry, mindless looters - trying to feed their families and take care of things. At least that's what I saw on my TV.

But hey, what do I know, I wasn't there…

Love

Sid.

This is truly an amazing article, the author actually justifies slavery!


http://www.techcentralstation.com/090805D.html

>>>>>>The State of Nature in New Orleans: What Hobbes Didn't Know
By Lee Harris  Published   09/08/2005 

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, George F. Will has written a remarkably thoughtful essay on the significance of Katrina.
In the aftermath of Katrina, Will observes, the city of New Orleans reverted back to what the seventeenth century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes called "the state of nature," a condition characterized by the absence of any established governmental authority sufficient to keep in check the violent and aggressive impulses of the individuals who compose it. <<<<<<<


The disaster in New Orleans was the result of the state failing to maintain the levees that were in its control and that the Army Corps of Engineers had warned would not hold. Money earmarked for the levees was diverted elsewhere by the government. When the levees failed the government abandoned the people they were supposed to be "serving", the feds did not respond and kept privateers from responding, the police were protecting gas stations and businesses. Some police just left with their families, some joined looters.

 
>>>>>On the reversion of New Orleans to the state of nature, I could not agree more. Where I must disagree is not with Mr. Will so much, but with Thomas Hobbes himself; and my point of disagreement is with Hobbes' famous and often quoted characterization of man's original state of nature as one in which human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
The problem I have is with the first adjective: solitary.  
If you step back and look at what really happened in New Orleans, the fact will jump out at you that human beings, instead of running around solitary and alone, immediately clumped together into gangs and groups, of two fundamental divergent types: one purely aggressive, and the other purely defensive.<<<<<

The author very carefully tippytoes around the real issue: the existence of good and evil and the flawed nature of man, the universal tendency to follow our own selfish interests. The representatives of government did. The strong will always attempt to prey on the weak.
 
>>>>>>On the one hand, you had gangs of ruthless young men who looted, raped, and murdered, doing whatever they pleased and taking whatever they wanted. On the other hand, you had weak and frightened individuals who could only defend themselves by gathering into protective clumps -- circling the wagons, so to speak. 
No doubt, some must have been stranded in solitude; but for the most part, solitude was avoided if there was anyway that the individual could escape from it. In a world where there are gangs of ruthless boys and young men roving about, nothing can be worse than to be come across one of them when you are alone. You become their instant prey. Hence, each individual would quickly rush from the state of lonely insecurity in order to become allied with a more powerful association.<<<<<

The roving gangs had the advantage of understanding the nature of the government. The "weak and frightened" individuals put their faith in government to protect them instead of preparing for the worst. And the whole world saw this monster covering the entire gulf before it hit land.
That's why even the cops were getting out.

>>>>>>Looked at from the perspective of post-Katrina New Orleans, Hobbes does not come across as the pessimist that he is often represented as being. After all, in Hobbes' state of nature, the worst enemy you could possibly encounter would be another solitary individual like yourself, with whom you could stand a fair chance in a fist fight, or with whom you might work out some fair deal. But when your worst enemy comes in the form of a bunch of ruthless thugs, what chance against them would the average man have?<<<<<

When people are dumbed down and trained in dependence in government schools, taught that the government "serves and protects", disarms and locks up thousands in a stadium billed as a "shelter" then abandons them, when people are not allowed to walk out of a demolished city...what do you expect? This was NOT a "state of nature". This was a shooting gallery conveniently set up by government at all levels.
 
>>>>>>In short, in the real and not merely theoretical state of nature, human beings tend to clump together, and these clumps tend to be clumps of the strong and the ruthless, on the one hand, and the weak and the defenseless, on the other. So Hobbes was quite obviously wrong in his assertion that life in a state of nature would be solitary. On the contrary, it would be clump-like.<<<<

The "clumping" in New Orleans was caused by government incompetence and dereliction. Harris is correct in his assessment of the strong preying on the weak, he simply forgets that government is made up of these same human beings who act in the same manner. Because of this they will not "protect and serve" powerless people. They protect and serve themselves, with a few exceptions. 

>>>>>>But what about the rest of the characterization -- the part about "poor, nasty, brutish, and short?" Did Hobbes get that part right, at least?
To see how Hobbes scored on this one, perform a simple thought-experiment. Suppose that New Orleans had been an island, and that it was solitary and alone, without any hope of outside help coming in. Imagine that there was no National Guard or United States military to come to the rescue of those human clumps made by the weak and defenseless, or to check the aggression of those human clumps made up by the strong and the ruthless. What, over the course of time, would have resulted from this situation? <<<<<

These people were made weak and defenseless by government in the first place. The government only "came to the rescue" days afterward when reporters on TV began crying and begging for help and the world could see how incompetent our government was being in a situation they allowed to happen by not maintaing the levees. 

>>>>>>There can be no question that the life of the weak and defenseless clumps would be "poor, nasty, brutish" -- and very possibly quite short as well. This is because the members of the weak clumps would either be quickly killed off by the strong clumps or that they would, if lucky or good-looking, become the slaves, the sex toys, or servants of whatever gangs came out on top in the struggle that would obviously take place between rival gangs. 
Now this struggle would, of course, be violent and it would cut short the life of many of the strong and the ruthless; but in the end, the gangsters would rule, either in the form of a single dominant gang, or else in the form of a multitude of continually feuding gangs.<<<<<

There will always be gangs who prey on others. Right now we have gangs of bureaucrats who prey on us through regulation, taxation, and money manipulation. If they have their way they will take our children to be killed to secure resources for their companies. This is no less preying because it is done with a glove on the iron fist, or by men in suits. At least in a free world I could shoot them and have a fighting chance. Unlike the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, or the people of New Orleans.
 
>>>>>>The gangs that came out on top might well continue to be brutish and nasty in their behavior, but they would not be poor.<<<<

So preying is OK as long as it's not "brutish"? Harris thinks there are no "gangs" on top now??? Yeah, I bet he loves the emperors new clothes as well.

>>>>At least, they would be exempt from all need to toil and to work, since they would have their slaves and servants to take care of their needs.<<<<

I have a darned good idea how much "toil and work" the armies of bureaucrats do that enslave us. The taxpayers might not have health insurance or retirement, but the "public servants" is the best.

>>>>>If not rich in the kind of material goods that constitutes our idea of wealth, they would have plenty of liquor and food and concubines and catamites -- all the things that make the good life as the gangster sees it.<<<<

So preying gangs are defined by the loot they grab? Sex slaves and liquor loot are what makes a gangster? This is simply degree of sophistication or availability of loot.
 
>>>>This, in fact, is the genesis of every warrior elite that has dominated every tribute paying class since at least the time of the Assyrian Empire, if not long before.
Hobbes, however, did not grasp any of this.<<<<<<

This guy has no right to criticize Hobbes for what HE didn't "grasp".
 
>>>>>>>Hobbes firmly believed that in his state of nature all individuals were exposed to exactly the same risk and the same challenges. Indeed, that was an essential premise of his general theory of politics: it was why Hobbes believed people could be persuaded, by rational argument alone, to enter into the social contract: it was in everyone's self interest to enter to do so.<<<<

There is no "social contract". A lawful contract requires certain elements be met: consideration, mutual agreement, etc. Simply being born under a particular political system isn't a "contract".

>>>>> Because each of us was solitary, and because each was (more or less) equal in our strength and cleverness, each of us would have precisely the same interest in creating a government to protect us.<<<<

The flaw in this reasoning is that those more clever/strong will BECOME the government and exact tribute from the rest, all the while telling the rest how much they are needed to protect. We see how this arrangement works in the example of New Orleans.

>>>> Since we all were alone, anarchy was equally disadvantageous to us all. <<<<

But mostly to those clever/strong who became the rulers, and those who earn a living supporting them.

>>>>But is that what the state of nature in New Orleans revealed?<<<<

If you cut off the utilities, take out the guards and open the cells of a prison is it a "state of nature"? This guy is full of it. The government failed deliberately at it's only legitimate function: protecting the people of New Orleans. Now they are looting the rest of the country to rebuild, again below sea level while "community leaders" and planners redesign the "black underclass" out of town.

>>>>>>> Not remotely. There it quickly became apparent that the state of nature favored certain individual far more than others -- namely, the strong, the young, the male, and the ruthless. Within hours of the catastrophe, they had seized the streets and ruled them to their own advantage. In the state of nature, they were the natural masters of the situation. <<<<<

New Orleans was NOT a "state of nature".
 
>>>>But if Hobbes got it wrong, then who got it right? 
The answer is that Aristotle did, but without quite realizing it.  
Curiously enough, Hobbes loathed Aristotle, and in particular he objected to Aristotle's theory that, for some men, slavery was their natural state. To Hobbes, as to all modern liberals, such an idea was deeply abhorrent and shocking. All men were equal in their gifts; all men were solitary in their self-interests.  
Aristotle's idea of the natural slave, however, turns out to be the correct one; but not quite in the way that Aristotle meant it. For Aristotle, the natural slave was the person who could not control his own impulses, and who was therefore better off with a master who forced him to control himself.<<<<

This is disgusting! Harris is justifying government by saying some people are "natural slaves" and "need masters"?? I'm betting, just going out on a limb here, and guessing he doesn't consider himself a "natural slave", who needs to be "controlled" by a "natural master".
 
>>>>In fact, this was a fairly transparent ideological gloss on the brutal reality of how the Greek world of Aristotle's time operated. Contrary to Aristotle's claim, people were not enslaved because they scored low on IQ tests, or because they exhibited a high degree of co-dependency on standardized psychological profiles. They were made slaves because they could be made slaves; they were made slaves because they were too weak and too helpless to defend themselves against the ruthless and heartless warrior elite that happened to come across them.<<<<

Sadly for them, they didn't have moral righteousness on their side. They ACCEPTED that slavery was OK, that might made right, that some men were favored by the gods or WERE gods. They didn't have an understanding of the ideas of liberty or God that created men equal in His eyes. And they didn't have guns. People can't be held in slavery unless they accept it.
 
>>>>>>We have a first hand account of this process in Xenophon's The Persian Expedition. Here the Greek mercenary forces who have found themselves trapped in the middle of the Persian Empire decide to fight their way back to Greece, and while on their way, they support themselves by capturing men, boys, girls, and women, herding them together and selling them at the next slave market they come to, in order to buy provisions for themselves. Does anyone feel the slightest guilt about it? No -- none at all. Not more guilt than the young looters and rapists of New Orleans felt during their rampage. <<<<

So he is now approving the New Orleans gangsters for simply being a heartless warrior class and enslaving "natural slaves"????
 
>>>>>So there are, in a way, natural slaves, just as there are, in a way, natural masters. Alas, it has always been the peaceful and the hard-working who have proven to be the natural slaves, and the ruthless and idle who have proven to be the natural masters.<<<

No. Men are created equal in the eyes of God, by God. Men have a flawed human nature, ALL of them, that makes them unfit to rule over other men.
 
>>>>That is the truth about the state of nature; and it is a truth that all liberals from the time of Thomas Hobbes have tried hard to hide from themselves.<<<<

Some men are more clever, some are more evil, some are kinder, some really believe they are fit to rule others and will do so if given a chance. But, they can only do so if the rest believes it too.
 
>>>>Reason is not enough to make the strong and the ruthless renounce their natural mastery over the weak and frail. <<<

Of course not, these people are voracious, but they can't overcome the sheer numbers of those they attempt to control. Once the slaves realize they are slaves, once the illegitimacy of the control over them is understood they can't be controlled. They have to be indoctrinated into the lies that support slavery.
 
>>>>In which case, it is only sensible to ask, What is?<<<<

Independence, wisdom, education, ability to defend oneself or grouping with others to achieve strength in numbers. As we see, certainly not government by men.
 

 
Lee Harris is author of Civilization and Its Enemies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JS,
I think you are twisting Lee Harris into something you can criticise. His attack on anarchy is all too strong for your taste.
It has been extimated that no more than about 4% of men are natural warriors. It is from among those men that societies defenders come.
We forget that from among those 4% came the men that restored order in the Superdome -- they didn't come from JS and Lew Rockwell. JS and Rockwell would leave us all victims of the immoral thugs.
Now lets go back to the 1st reply for the grounds to have a decent discussion instead of listening to JS ride her hobby horse.
I've read a lot more of Lee Harris than the one article. Mr. Harris does a good job of tying together the various viewpoints of John Gatto and others. He sees the connection between education, legitimate government and our faith in God.
Folks, I did not put Lee Harris forward as the man with the answers as JS does with Rockwell. Instead I think that while he has a lot to say the arena he discusses is a "site underconstruction." As it is a site underconstruction I am putting him forward for your reading, contemplation and of course your opinions.
Ron
Ron

>>>>I think you are twisting Lee Harris into something you can criticise. His attack on anarchy is all too strong for your taste.<<<

Too strong?? It didn't make sense and was immoral to boot. What did I twist?

>>>>It has been extimated that no more than about 4% of men are natural warriors. It is from among those men that societies defenders come.<<<<

What are your sources for this statistic? What is a "natural warrior"? Are only men "natural warriors"? Who decides what "natural warriors" war against?

>>>>We forget that from among those 4% came the men that restored order in the Superdome -- they didn't come from JS and Lew Rockwell. JS and Rockwell would leave us all victims of the immoral thugs.<<<<

The government created the literal and figurative toilet that the Kingdom became, set up the circumstances that made one group of people defenseless against more predatory humans.... and you think they should get a pat on the back for "restoring order" days later ?? Sorry, I strongly disagree.

>>>>Now lets go back to the 1st reply for the grounds to have a decent discussion instead of listening to JS ride her hobby horse.<<<

You post an article that's a load of nonsense, I'm simply pointing it out. Unfortunately, you consider careful point by point responses "riding a hobby horse". How unfortunate that you dislike consistency. Try a point by point rebuttal of what I've posted that you disagree with. It's more effective than lame insults.

>>>>I've read a lot more of Lee Harris than the one article. Mr. Harris does a good job of tying together the various viewpoints of John Gatto and others. He sees the connection between education, legitimate government and our faith in God.<<<<

I haven't read those articles. He's out to lunch on this one.

>>>>>Folks, I did not put Lee Harris forward as the man with the answers as JS does with Rockwell.<<<<<

I have never posted this. I post a lot of articles from LRC because those columnists make the most sense. Certainly more sense than this guy who thinks some people are just "natural slaves".

>>>> Instead I think that while he has a lot to say the arena he discusses is a "site underconstruction." As it is a site underconstruction I am putting him forward for your reading, contemplation and of course your opinions.<<<<

No you didn't. I gave my opinion and you insulted me for it. Since you posted this article doesn't that mean you think Harris has all the answers (Ronthink)?

That 4% would be a lot higher if we weren't deliberately raising a nation of pansies. ;)

I haven't met the boy who didn't have at least a smidge of desire to be a Mighty Warrior. Every boy, and most girls, that comes over here stick-fights and plays commando in the woods.

It never occurred to me that they wouldn't.

Jennifer,
"That 4% would be a lot higher if we weren't deliberately raising a nation of pansies. ;) I haven't met the boy who didn't have at least a smidge of desire to be a Mighty Warrior. Every boy, and most girls, that comes over here stick-fights and plays commando in the woods."

It goes a lot further than that. If you read Lee Harris, the Army Values, the new book In Search of Paul, you will find that in a pius society of which there have been a number we learn to believe our religious based ethics right down to the bone.
As a result women do not feed stranges with poison flavored dishes, women can be alone with a man in safety and murder is not done every hour on the hour. Not only that but you can take our word on a business deal even when our given word runs counter to our short run interest.
However, as JS will be only too happy to point out, we always have the Morlocks with us. The Morlocks problem is that we also have that percentage of morally good and decent warriors with us also.
Our only problem is that we have to organize before the arrival of the Morlocks else the warriors will either die needlessly or run because the odds are too great.
When we organize before hand we call that the beginning of government.
I said the beginning because Morlocks and others will attempt to turn that government to their designs. I think our founders did a wonderful job of design. The problem is that no amount of design nor any number of laws however wise they may be can work and endure unless morally good and decent warriors (warriorettes?, I mean both sexes) take an active part in government.
Ron

I agree with you in part, Jen. I strongly disagree with the notion of Mighty Warriors employed by the State to go around the world making war on people in our name telling us it's for our "freedoms". I do agree on the feminization of the men in the US. It's a shame and I believe it's deliberate. Men are depicted on TV as hapless dunces, fools and doofuses. Compare the recent remake of "Yours, MIne, and Ours". I haven't seen the movie because I am so offended by the depictions of the parents in the TV promotions. The original movie had intelligent adult parent figures (portrayed by Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball) who struggled with real issues with dignity. The remake (the ads, anyway,) are full of parental slapstick, pratfalls, sophisticated children and other such "cute" nonsense. This was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid, people should skip this remake and see the original. Sorry to digress, but we are inundated with messages that demean parents and masculine pursuits like hunting and fishing while "metrosexual" males in spandex bike shorts and helmets are the modern definition of manliness.

JS, "I strongly disagree with the notion of Mighty Warriors employed by the State to go around the world making war on people in our name telling us it's for our "freedoms"."
JS I can't imagine you could possibly disagree with that characterization -- after all you made it up out of the whole cloth.
Or was it only intended to be a straw man that you could set up and then demolish with one stroke of your poison pen?
The truth is that the men I was calling the Warrior are here in about the numbers estimated and they are the ones that step up to protect you, in your home & in your neighborhood. Furthermore they do not seek your permission for breathing rights.
It is easy to recognise them. On 911 they are the ones that ran toward the towers while Rockwell penned another column wishing someone would give him an anarchy.
Ron

>>>>>JS, "I strongly disagree with the notion of Mighty Warriors employed by the State to go around the world making war on people in our name telling us it's for our "freedoms"."
JS I can't imagine you could possibly disagree with that characterization -- after all you made it up out of the whole cloth.<<<<<

Why would I disagree with my own assertion? What whole cloth ARE you talking about?

>>>>>Or was it only intended to be a straw man that you could set up and then demolish with one stroke of your poison pen?<<<<<

Again, What ARE you talking about?

>>>>>>The truth is that the men I was calling the Warrior are here in about the numbers estimated and they are the ones that step up to protect you, in your home & in your neighborhood.<<<<<<<<

Is that why they always show up 30-60 minutes after the volunteer FD paramedics around here? I'm so comforted. Glad you explained it to me. Last time they came to apprehend a fugitive (who happened to wreck in our yard) they arrived complaining mightily about how close it was to quitting time (10:30 PM) drove off down the road where the volunteers had seen the guy hitching, came back 15" later saying he ran off through the weeds and they "couldn't catch him". Funny thing was, all of us had wet feet from the grass in our yard. The cops had dry shiny shoes and tidy dry knife edged creases in their pantlegs after having supposedly given chase through the tall grass in hot pursuit. It was hilarious. I sleep so much easier knowing these "Warriors" of yours protect me.

>>>>Furthermore they do not seek your permission for breathing rights.<<<<<

They can breathe all they want, what does that have to do with invading and occupying countries all over the globe and calling it "protecting" "our freedoms". Are you saying this is the same thing as "breathing"?

>>>>>It is easy to recognise them. On 911 they are the ones that ran toward the towers while Rockwell penned another column wishing someone would give him an anarchy.<<<<<

What does Rockwell have to do with this? Apparently, he is YOUR "strawman", isn't he? Please post the column where he "wishes someone would give him anarchy". You won't because he didn't.
As far as the 9/11 tragedy, there has never been an investigation into how that "rescue" was handled. Many people died needlessly after being told by those firemen and their bosses to stay put in the towers. I know of a person who was in the second tower, was told to stay there with everyone else. She and a friend got on an elevator when the firemans back was turned, came down and walked out of that building. Everyone else who stayed up there died. I wouldn't have had the guts to have done that, I thought those guys knew what they were doing. Obviously not. Very tragic. But we can't question our "heroes" and "warriors" can we?

I shouldn't even comment because I haven't totally follow this thread, but HEY why not. I don't think you HATE MEN, That's a double Huhhhhh for me ?

Listening to so called know~alls in life threating situation like you friend did could have cost them their lives.

My brother in law is 70 something years old, retired fire chief who is discusted with how they teach newbie firefighters. The guys who teach them are losers who couldn't cut the physicals or even the common sense part of being a firefighter so they somehow become the teacher. It is unbelieveable the stories he has told.

If planes came crashing around us, "common sense" should tell ya to get the bleep out of the buildings.

Speeking of "common sense" and fire alarms, it's not a 9/ll tragedy by any means but it shows how people think or NOT. I dropped kiddo at work last week, we were early so we had a Booster juice in the same building complex and talked, the fire alarm went off, there were dozens of people on exercise equipment who did not move, I guess false alarms happen ofter there. Fire department pulled in at the bowling alley in the same building complex next door to where she works. Kiddo was upset because their store was not warned and they have HUNDREDS of animals that would have died had it been a REAL disaster, and no warning. Hey, there where also people working there, LIKE our kid who'd die to save every pup, kitten, birds, roddents, fish, even snakes and crickets. Forwarning in this small instance would have been appreciated, 9/11 is still questionable if you know what I mean. Ummmmmm? I don't want to rehash that act of inhumanity unless the whole truth is published. Watergate opened floodwaters, maybe there is hope to know the truth someday of why so many planes full of inocents people were hijacked that morning. Sheeeesh, my little boy couldn't get his watersquirtgun through airport security in Toronto 15 years ago. Talk about being treated like criminals, OiY, I was exhausted traveling with 3 kiddos, the toy made it through Edmonton security why not Toronto, had to wander what seemed MILES to find where we could check in his toy so we could catch the next plane to Windsor. Talk about picking on honest people or WHAT. Here we have a momma with 3 kids, nope our munchkins aren't in training to hurt or kill people , yet the authorities let killers onto airplanes , take control and we all know what happened. That was the last year we stepped on an plane until mom was dieing, we had to be there fast. Air Canada let us down , Northwest airlines, was great and managed to get us there in less than 24 hours.

I'm glad your friends survived rather than stay put and die, takes a lot of guts for them to do that . There was a time when we trusted others to educate our children, thankfully we chose the elevator.

Oooops sorry, all I meant to say is, you don't hate men, just dispize the warmungeringmorons and bully thieving money hungry government workers who have forgotten who they work for, TAXPAYERS, who are seriously tired of overtaxation and not getting WARRANTY for THEIRskew~ups. Doubtfull than any insurance company on the planet would insure governments ;-)

Have a good Christmas :-)

our focuss is family year round, Christmas is a very special time for us. This year is even more memorable when big boy asked if he could cut a Christmas tree out of our bush. That's a sweet story but not for this thread ;-) Off topic ya know

Give your family a hug from me.

Love

Bobby aka Oma who refuses to edit, hehehe

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051209112354415

Welcome to Infoshop News
Friday, December 09 2005 @ 04:19 PM PST

Thinking about anarchism: Anarchism and human nature
Friday, December 09 2005 @ 11:23 AM PST
Contributed by: Admin
Views: 73
It's the last line of defence against anarchism. You're in the pub, you've convinced them, they can see the possibilities, they want to know more - they're interested and then the voice pops up: "shure that
would never work because of.... human nature...bud" But, in fairness, it is a very sincerely held belief by many people, that we are "naturally" greedy, rotten feckers and, in the absence of government, some mad
form of capitalism would be inevitable.

Thinking about anarchism: Anarchism and human nature

Ireland, Anarchist Workers Solidarity #89

"Then, in the souls of the oppressed, powerless men every other man is taken
for hostile, inconsiderate, exploitative, cruel, sly whether he be noble or base."
- Friedrich Nietzsche - Human, All Too Human, 1878.

It's the last line of defence against anarchism. You're in the pub,
you've convinced them, they can see the possibilities, they want to
know more - they're interested and then the voice pops up: "shure that
would never work because of.... human nature...bud" But, in fairness,
it is a very sincerely held belief by many people, that we are "naturally"
greedy, rotten feckers and, in the absence of government, some mad
form of capitalism would be inevitable.

The English philosopher Hobbes was first to systemise this
pessimistic view of human nature. He coined the term " war of all
against all" to characterise a return to nature where people just
survived through hand to hand fighting, digging lumps out of each
other, even eating each other if necessary. Handily this horror could be
avoided if a sovereign was agreed to. This would be the last assertion
of power by the "people" as, after that, only the sovereign could rule.
Needless to say, his book "Leviathan" was a big hit with European
monarchs and rulers in the Seventeenth Century.

Rousseau expressed the exact opposite view about hundred years
later. He saw Mankind as "naturally good" and wanted to strip off the
layers of "civilisation" that were preventing us from being our most
"natural" and good selves.

Most anarchists, myself included, would see human nature as neither
good nor bad. The very terms are "socially constructed". People are
shaped by their biological make up and by their environment. You
can't change your biological inheritance (much!) but the influence of
your parents, education, friends, the media and so on vary widely from
person to person. In general the prevailing morality of a society, indeed
the very concepts of "good" and "bad" are set out by the ruling forces
in that society.

For example historically meekness and mildness are seen as "good"
where as selfishness and maliciousness are "bad".

Certain traits are encouraged because they keep us in line but cheeky
or rebellious ones are frowned on.

In this present western phase of late capitalist over-production two
things are required. 1. That we stay at home in front of "the box" and
cause no trouble. 2. That we pitch in and consume!

Advertising plays on our most basic human need for security and the
slightly more advanced need for contentment. It sells us a very shallow
in-duh-viduality based entirely on what we consume and how we look.
We become shallow, snobby, alienated and hostile towards everyone
around us as per the Nietzsche quote above. We want to do others
down. Basically the system encourages everything that is crap in us!

But we know people can be better than this. Just look at voluntary
organisations like the GAA, the lifeboat service etc. Local community
groups draw on the time and effort of thousands of people, which they
give quite gladly. Further, many of these grassroots organisations,
though they may appear quite harmless and run of the mill are run in a
very democratic fashion.

Some even practice direct democracy and so (though they might be
shocked to hear it) are functionally anarchist. They bring people
together, empower them and move them beyond in-duh-vidual
consumerism. They present for the system the danger of a good
example. We too know the power of a good example. When people
hear libertarian ideas and, where they see them working in practise
then their "better" side begins to emerge. Capitalism or any society of
leaders and led inevitably brings out our worst - that's what it's
designed to do. Anarchism brings out our best - that's what it's
designed to do!

There is no fixed, inalienable human nature - people can change, and
society can change - for the better.

-------------------------------------
This page is from the print version of the Irish Anarchist paper
'Workers Solidarity'. http://struggle.ws/wsm/paper.html

We also provide PDF files of all our
publications for you to print out and distribute locally

Print out the PDF file of this issue
http://struggle.ws/wsm/pdf/ws/89.html

You can find out when new issues of the paper come out by joining
the Ainriail list http://struggle.ws/other/ainriail.html

This edition is No89 published in Sept 2005
http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2005/index.html
_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en

This is a muddled up thinker. He is an apparent atheist who is trying to justify his opinions using Christian morality while denying it exists.

>>>>>>Thinking about anarchism: Anarchism and human nature

Ireland, Anarchist Workers Solidarity #89<<<<<<

If there is no capitalism, who do "the workers" work for? Is it required to be a "worker"? If so, how is this anarchism?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Then, in the souls of the oppressed, powerless men every other man is taken
for hostile, inconsiderate, exploitative, cruel, sly whether he be noble or base."
- Friedrich Nietzsche - Human, All Too Human, 1878.

It's the last line of defence against anarchism. You're in the pub,
you've convinced them, they can see the possibilities, they want to
know more - they're interested and then the voice pops up: "shure that
would never work because of.... human nature...bud" But, in fairness,
it is a very sincerely held belief by many people, that we are "naturally"
greedy, rotten feckers and, in the absence of government, some mad
form of capitalism would be inevitable.<<<<<<<<

The flaw here is believing that somehow government will be miraculouly free of these "greedy, rotten, feckers" (all gov't employees are altruistic saints protecting us, don't they tell us that in grade school?). The reality is that the raw power attracts the "greedy, rotten, feckers" like a magnet. The "protector" becomes the worst oppressor. He is also simply assuming capitalism is an evil.


>>>>>>Most anarchists, myself included, would see human nature as neither
good nor bad. The very terms are "socially constructed". People are
shaped by their biological make up and by their environment.<<<<

He takes the "nurture" side in nature vs nurture.

>>>>You
can't change your biological inheritance (much!) but the influence of
your parents, education, friends, the media and so on vary widely from
person to person. In general the prevailing morality of a society, indeed
the very concepts of "good" and "bad" are set out by the ruling forces
in that society.<<<<<

Good and evil DO exist. The concepts of "good and bad" the regular people are supposed to have ARE defined by the morality/worldview/religion of the ruling class. This author's worldview is that there is no real "good" or "evil", that they are artificial constructs forced on us, or so he says here.

>>>>>>>>>>We become shallow, snobby, alienated and hostile towards everyone
around us as per the Nietzsche quote above. We want to do others
down. Basically the system encourages everything that is crap in us!<<<<<

But wait!! What's this??!! These statements reflect ideas that indicate the author DOES believe some behaviors are "good" and some are "crap". Hhhmmm...what can this mean? I must read on to gain understanding.

>>>>>>>>But we know people can be better than this. Just look at voluntary
organisations like the GAA, the lifeboat service etc. Local community
groups draw on the time and effort of thousands of people, which they
give quite gladly. Further, many of these grassroots organisations,
though they may appear quite harmless and run of the mill are run in a
very democratic fashion.<<<<<

I see...Hhhhmmmmmm.... I see. "Shallow" (a judgement call if I ever heard one), "snobby" (an undesirable personality trait or simply a desire for solitude?), "alienated", and hostile" = "bad"...."Groups", "Community", "grassroots", "democracy", "thousands of people" = "good". And people "can be better" (or worse)?

So our leftist anarchist who says morality is an artificial construct DOES have some definite ideas on what is good and what is bad (morality). Individualism, independence, personal choice and discernment, and crankiness (perhaps with collectivising groupthinkers??) is "bad"; herds, collectives, groups, grassroots groups, and democracy are "good". Now this is interesting. Could his moral choices have anything to do with the fact that people are easier to manage in groups and herds (as we have seen with our discussions on the Alinsky methods and the Delphi technique)? Groups and gangs are more willing to do things they would not normally do on an individual basis. A person whose primary identity is as part of a herd essentially loses part of his humanity to become part of that herd. But to our author, I'm sure humans are just another species of animal to be managed.

>>>>>>Some even practice direct democracy and so (though they might be
shocked to hear it) are functionally anarchist.<<<<<<

Huh??? Democracy is majority rule. That implies some type of oppression of the minority, which is not anarchism.

>>>>>>They bring people
together, empower them and move them beyond in-duh-vidual
consumerism. They present for the system the danger of a good
example. We too know the power of a good example. When people
hear libertarian ideas and, where they see them working in practise
then their "better" side begins to emerge.<<<<<

"Consumerism" is "bad", "being brought together" is "good" (but why we must be herded, he doesn't say). And, astonishingly, here the author claims people have a "BETTER SIDE"!!! How can that be in his world where good and bad are artificial constructs? Does that not admit an "evil side" to man, ALL men, as well? Who decides what is a "better side"?


>>>>Capitalism or any society of
leaders and led inevitably brings out our worst - that's what it's
designed to do.<<<<<

I agree with the "leaders and led" part. But demonizing capitalism, without explaining how people are to trade and obtain goods and services doesn't make any sense. Unless he thinks people are all going to exhibit their "better sides", create communes and produce and share each according to his blah, blah, blah. We know how THAT works out. Something tells me this guy wouldn't be the first to sign up for latrine duty, human nature being what it is, despite the authors superficial claims to the contrary. And here, he claims people even have a "worst" side!

>>>>Anarchism brings out our best - that's what it's
designed to do!<<<<

Market anarchism would certainly encourage cooperation among people.

>>>>>There is no fixed, inalienable human nature - people can change, and
society can change - for the better.<<<<<

Oh dear.... what can this mean? There is no fixed human nature....but people have "better sides"? Do these better and worst "sides" just come and go?

"The Workers" need to do better than this, it's pretty illogical and lame.

-------------------------------------
This page is from the print version of the Irish Anarchist paper
'Workers Solidarity'. http://struggle.ws/wsm/paper.html

commongroundrelief.org

and have no power to coerce me, I have no problem with them. There were many individuals who also helped victims of Katrina.

How close are you to completing your book?

Bobby,
"How close are you to completing your book?" Let me take the long way round. I follow a method taught to screen writers sometimes. Scene by scene I exhaustively map out my book. After that I do the finish in one or two passes.
The gut wrenching part of the book is in that first scene by scene mapping. I am presently mapping out the last third of the book. That should be complete before spring and the entire book finished by next Christmas.
For several reasons I got interested in gifted education but defined "gifted" pretty broadly. In the definition I am using the smartest 2.5 million people in Canada would be gifted. That would be equal to what -- the entire population of Greater Toronto?
If you read Gatto, Bauer, and Wise IMHO you pretty much have drawn a circle around the academic education side of things.
However, there are a couple of complicating factors in my theme. Studies show that population, everywhere, is forming its own neighborhoods. Sometimes those neighborhoods are physical and sometimes virtual.
I believe that one outstanding characteristic of that population in neighborhood is the speed with which they learn from each other. If you read UHAE I have in mind a process somewhat like Mr. Gatto described as the dialectic of the early Congregational Church in America and probably elsewhere.
That led me in to health, sex (relationships really) money management and so on. After that I had to avoid utopianism because I doubt very much it will be a utopia -- just a step beyond as homo sap was an advance over the neanderthal.
Back to our muttons. As you can tell from this thread. I have gotten interested in Mr. Gatto and Lee Harris' views on society and the role of religion.
Religion along with its other roles appears to be the enabling agent that allows men (mankind) to work together in trust when religion is able to establish expectations of honor and integrity among the population.
Mr. Gatto, I believe, also made the point that according to Bismark the army should be about the same size as the prison population.
I would love to read more on Bismark's thoughts about the Army and prisons.
My interpretation of the world and of Mr. Gatto's comments are that we will always have the criminal with us as we did during and after Katrina. They will always band together to cow the timid. However, there always seems to be an equal number of warriors that will band together to stop the criminal.
However the warriors will be governed by their moral or religious upbringing and not infringe upon morality.
Ron

Glad you're on your final phaze of your book. Keep us tuned on your progress Ron :-)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Bobby,
"How close are you to completing your book?" Let me take the long way round. I follow a method taught to screen writers sometimes. Scene by scene I exhaustively map out my book. After that I do the finish in one or two passes.
The gut wrenching part of the book is in that first scene by scene mapping. I am presently mapping out the last third of the book. That should be complete before spring and the entire book finished by next Christmas.
For several reasons I got interested in gifted education but defined "gifted" pretty broadly. In the definition I am using the smartest 2.5 million people in Canada would be gifted. That would be equal to what -- the entire population of Greater Toronto?
If you read Gatto, Bauer, and Wise IMHO you pretty much have drawn a circle around the academic education side of things.
However, there are a couple of complicating factors in my theme. Studies show that population, everywhere, is forming its own neighborhoods. Sometimes those neighborhoods are physical and sometimes virtual.
I believe that one outstanding characteristic of that population in neighborhood is the speed with which they learn from each other. If you read UHAE I have in mind a process somewhat like Mr. Gatto described as the dialectic of the early Congregational Church in America and probably elsewhere.
That led me in to health, sex (relationships really) money management and so on. After that I had to avoid utopianism because I doubt very much it will be a utopia -- just a step beyond as homo sap was an advance over the neanderthal.
Back to our muttons. As you can tell from this thread. I have gotten interested in Mr. Gatto and Lee Harris' views on society and the role of religion.
Religion along with its other roles appears to be the enabling agent that allows men (mankind) to work together in trust when religion is able to establish expectations of honor and integrity among the population.
Mr. Gatto, I believe, also made the point that according to Bismark the army should be about the same size as the prison population.
I would love to read more on Bismark's thoughts about the Army and prisons.
My interpretation of the world and of Mr. Gatto's comments are that we will always have the criminal with us as we did during and after Katrina. They will always band together to cow the timid. However, there always seems to be an equal number of warriors that will band together to stop the criminal.
However the warriors will be governed by their moral or religious upbringing and not infringe upon morality.
Ron

Bobby,
"Glad you're on your final phaze of your book. Keep us tuned on your progress Ron :-)"
Are you the one that turned me on to Teenage Liberation Handbook. I want to use that book to introduce my hero but it is a son of a gun to get delivered over Christmas.
Ron

No Ron, wasn't me who brought the book to your attention. Visiting this board for the past few years, I've noticed many people recomend the "Teenage Liberation Handbook", sounds like a good read. Our kids were liberated many years ago, you know me semi well as to how they were rescued. Reading about things in "books" is educational but the ability to READ ones' children and listen to them as they grow and I mean really "listen", can't come from a stranger who writes "best seller" books for profit.

Hopefully you get the book delivered but somehow I don't think it will slow your "hero" down if you surpas the Christmas rush ;-)

Your book sounds like it may be a read that our family will enjoy. Keep ~ plugging away, you'll finish it by next Christmas, right? Do you have a publisher or are you on your own? Editing your own work is a pain, do you have help with the editing?

I won't ask who your "hero" is, we'll wait until you publish your book :-)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Bobby,
"Glad you're on your final phaze of your book. Keep us tuned on your progress Ron "
Are you the one that turned me on to Teenage Liberation Handbook. I want to use that book to introduce my hero but it is a son of a gun to get delivered over Christmas.
Ron