Is localization, voluntaryism, and tribalism really the solution?

[peacepotpaul]

I often hear people in the patriot & liberty movement say, that things are better when communities and jurisdictions are small.

But what do we learn from Waco, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Amish, Elohim City, Bohemian Grove, Scientology and Manson's Family? Are they examples of how freedom of association & lack of government ought to be?

[MelissaWV]

I often hear people in the patriot & liberty movement say, that things are better when communities and jurisdictions are small.

But what do we learn from Waco, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Amish, Elohim City, Bohemian Grove, Scientology and Manson's Family? Are they examples of how freedom of association & lack of government ought to be?

Depending on which of those you're addressing at the time, you learn that the Government will come in and stomp you into the ground, that the NAP is a pretty cool thing (so please don't go stabbing and otherwise murdering random people), and that cults stick around as long as they are funded by famous people whose kookiness is accepted. :(

It isn't absolutely necessary for the community/jurisdiction to be small, but it's likely that is what would happen (compared to what we have today). The essential part, at least for me, is that you be able to opt out unless you are under contract, in which case you would need to satisfy the person you are backing out of a contract with, or satisfy a court (or equivalent) that the contract should not be enforced.

[dannno]

I often hear people in the patriot & liberty movement say, that things are better when communities and jurisdictions are small.

But what do we learn from Waco, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Amish, Elohim City, Bohemian Grove, Scientology and Manson's Family? Are they examples of how freedom of association & lack of government ought to be?

Waco is an example of big government slaughtering innocent people.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=240976


Cults are an example of people voluntarily associating with people they probably shouldn't be, but what is worse is when government rules our lives and tells us what sort of associations we might have.

[Taco John]

Nobody at Waco ever bothered me.

[dannno]

I don't believe Scientology is true, but who the hell am I to tell a Scientologist what they should believe?

If I don't have the right to tell a Scientologist what they should or shouldn't believe, then I shouldn't be able to transfer that right to government.

I have the right to protect myself against physical force, coercion, violence, fraud, and so therefore I can transfer that right to the state. I can give the state the right to protect my property and persons against those things because I have the right to protect myself against those things.

[amy31416]

What's the matter with the Amish?

[Anti Federalist]

Waco is an example of big government slaughtering innocent people.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=240976


Cults are an example of people voluntarily associating with people they probably shouldn't be, but what is worse is when government rules our lives and tells us what sort of associations we might have.

That ^^

[constituent]

What's the matter with the Amish?

good eye champ.

[Old Ducker]

I often hear people in the patriot & liberty movement say, that things are better when communities and jurisdictions are small.

But what do we learn from Waco, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Amish, Elohim City, Bohemian Grove, Scientology and Manson's Family? Are they examples of how freedom of association & lack of government ought to be?

That's an odd assemblage. That you included the criminal Manson "family" suggests you have ulterior motives.

[MelissaWV]

What's the matter with the Amish?

*shrugs* I included them in the learning that the NAP is a pretty good thing. They're quiet, peaceful, and most folks just laugh them off. No one is sitting there going "we'd better keep an eye on those Amish..." or anything. Now they're getting to opt out of a bunch of things like healthcare. It seems like a pretty good deal in general to me, if you're into being Amish.

[amy31416]

good eye champ.

Thanks, ace. :p

Snuck that in with Bohemian Grove, Manson's Family and other nefarious groups? Give me a break--I might think they smell bad and dress funny, but they do no harm to other people and I respect their choice to live how they want and avoid entanglement with the Federal government as much as possible.

[peacepotpaul]

Thanks, ace. :p

Snuck that in with Bohemian Grove, Manson's Family and other nefarious groups? Give me a break--I might think they smell bad and dress funny, but they do no harm to other people and I respect their choice to live how they want and avoid entanglement with the Federal government as much as possible.

did their children get a chance to chose where they were born?
do you agree with how they punish their people for raping their sisters?
is there freedom from the Federal government license to violate another person's God given or Constitutional rights?

[peacepotpaul]

Nobody at Waco ever bothered me.

nobody who killed Davidians bothered me either.

[amy31416]

did their children get a chance to chose where they were born?
do you agree with how they punish their people for raping their sisters?
is there freedom from the Federal government license to violate another person's God given or Constitutional rights?

1. No, and neither did I.
2. I don't know how they punish their people for raping their sisters.
3. Explain exactly how they are violating other people's rights.

[dannno]

nobody who killed Davidians bothered me either.

Well then you are uninformed or you are an inherently evil person.

Please watch the link I posted.

The Davidians did NOTHING wrong. You and I and many people here were brainwashed by the media. We've since learned the truth.

[ChaosControl]

Yes, it is the solution.

One community could be communist to satisfy those people, another could be basically anarcho-capitalist to satisfy those people. Whatever the community wants. Given the communities would be small and local, for the most part, there will be a community for everyone.

[amy31416]

Well then you are uninformed or you are an inherently evil person.


Or a troll.

[peacepotpaul]

1. No, and neither did I.
2. I don't know how they punish their people for raping their sisters.
3. Explain exactly how they are violating other people's rights.

Google Mary Byler, a woman who had to run out of her community and use our government to force the Amish criminals into justice. Her family and neighbors did nothing physically to punish her father or brothers for raping her (would any other American city tolerate this?). They are not violating people's rights outside their community, only inside.

[Anti Federalist]

nobody who killed Davidians bothered me either.

Now you're just trolling.

[dannno]

Google Mary Byler, a woman who had to run out of her community and use our government to force the Amish criminals into justice. Her family and neighbors did nothing physically to punish her father or brothers for raping her (would any other American city tolerate this?). They are not violating people's rights outside their community, only inside.

I agree with how that situation was handled.

What's your point? Do you think shutting down the entire Amish community will be a good way to prevent a girl from being raped in the future? Or has rape always inherently been apart of society and something that is difficult to deal with?

[amy31416]

Google Mary Byler, a woman who had to run out of her community and use our government to force the Amish criminals into justice. Her family and neighbors did nothing physically to punish her father or brothers for raping her (would any other American city tolerate this?). They are not violating people's rights outside their community, only inside.

So you have one instance where they did not serve justice towards rapists, and you implied (dishonestly) that they violate other people's rights.

Yeah, that's far worse than our government acts.

[Anti Federalist]

Localization provides a means to "vote with your feet".

As far as I know, there are no armed guards and pillboxes around Amish communities, you're free to leave at any time.

Government, especially as it grows larger and "goes global" will mean there will be no place left to run.

So when it's government raping your sister, metaphorically and perhaps literally, you'll have no choice but to stand there and accept it.

[ChaosControl]

Google Mary Byler, a woman who had to run out of her community and use our government to force the Amish criminals into justice. Her family and neighbors did nothing physically to punish her father or brothers for raping her (would any other American city tolerate this?). They are not violating people's rights outside their community, only inside.

And there they harmed her, once harm is caused to a non-consenting party, outside action is allowable. That is why even though we would be mostly local small communities, we would still be a nation and have a small government to prevent the more local communities and governments from actually allowing harm.

[amy31416]

As far as I know, there are no armed guards and pillboxes around Amish communities, you're free to leave at any time.

Government, especially as it grows larger and "goes global" will mean there will be no place left to run.

So when it's government raping your sister, metaphorically and perhaps literally, you'll have no choice but to stand there and accept it.

Funny how those "subtle" differences escape those who worship the state.

[peacepotpaul]

I agree with how that situation was handled.

What's your point? Do you think shutting down the entire Amish community will be a good way to prevent a girl from being raped in the future?


no, just recognizing that there's a price for localization, and since a few here have said the alternative is worse, I guess I have nothing to say.



Or has rape always inherently been apart of society and something that is difficult to deal with?

no, it's not difficult to deal with, just whether you believe certain freedoms are worth sacrificing for the good of preventing rape (if it's such a bad thing to you).

[peacepotpaul]

And there they harmed her, once harm is caused to a non-consenting party, outside action is allowable. That is why even though we would be mostly local small communities, we would still be a nation and have a small government to prevent the more local communities and governments from actually allowing harm.

sounds like you're saying, intervention is OK as long as you believe somebody was violated (and then, it'd be up to the intervener to define what he believes is "violation", isn't that how CPS takes children?)

[peacepotpaul]

Localization provides a means to "vote with your feet".

As far as I know, there are no armed guards and pillboxes around Amish communities, you're free to leave at any time.


You assume they know where and how to get out.
That's like saying there's no cage on your house and children are free to leave their parents if they hate them.



Government, especially as it grows larger and "goes global" will mean there will be no place left to run.

So when it's government raping your sister, metaphorically and perhaps literally, you'll have no choice but to stand there and accept it.

when it's the government preventing rape, criminals will have no choice but to accept it.

[tremendoustie]

sounds like you're saying, intervention is OK as long as you believe somebody was violated (and then, it'd be up to the intervener to define what he believes is "violation", isn't that how CPS takes children?)

Intervention is OK as long as someone has actually been violated. Of course, on this, as on any moral question, there will be disagreement.

Who's more likely to seek office -- your neighbor, who just wants to be left alone, or a power hungry individual who wants to run everyone else's lives? Who's more likely to obtain power -- an honest person who stands on principle, or an excellent liar who happily accepts all kinds of money from special interests, and will say anything he needs to say to get elected?

If we trust average people more, we should design a system that is maximally influenced by average people. That would be local government, or better yet, a society which follows the NAP.



when it's the government preventing rape, criminals will have no choice but to accept it.

Yep, and that's fine. No one has a right to harm the persons and property of others, including rapists.

The problem with "government" as we know it is not that it stops rapists, it's that it obtains funding by force, and does not allow alternatives. A voluntary arrangement would, and should, still enforce rules against harming persons or property.

And if a person in a nearby community has clearly been harmed, it's right to step in on their behalf.

[tremendoustie]

Google Mary Byler, a woman who had to run out of her community and use our government to force the Amish criminals into justice. Her family and neighbors did nothing physically to punish her father or brothers for raping her (would any other American city tolerate this?). They are not violating people's rights outside their community, only inside.

Doesn't matter. She has a right to protect herself, and seek restitution.

That doesn't destroy localism -- the key for voluntaryism, is that people are free to use their finances and lives as they choose, as long as they don't harm others. If you harm others, you should be held accountable.

What destroys localism is a federal government demanding taxes of everyone. I can't decide to fund local medical charity, I have to fund medicaid. I can't decide to subscribe to a local protection agency, I have to pay for the FBI. I can't contribute to a local milita, I have to pay for the military to go invade other countries. I can't decide to fund a local homeless shelter or work program, I have to pay into the welfare system.

Also, there are legal tender laws, oppressive regulations and licensing, the Federal Reserve, federal mandates, prohibition of victimless behavior, selective service, etc.

[constituent]

when it's the government preventing rape

government prevents rape? :confused:

[peacepotpaul]

Doesn't matter. She has a right to protect herself, and seek restitution.


what if she was brainwashed by her family to believe she had no rights, like Precious? She was lucky she knew she was violated, and where to find help, or else, who knows, she just might be happy with it (and are we to tell her otherwise in that case?)

[Mini-Me]

I often hear people in the patriot & liberty movement say, that things are better when communities and jurisdictions are small.

But what do we learn from Waco, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Amish, Elohim City, Bohemian Grove, Scientology and Manson's Family? Are they examples of how freedom of association & lack of government ought to be?

When people are given the freedom to live their lives as they choose, you're certainly going to have some small isolated groups of whackos (though some of your examples are really questionable; I mean, in the general sense, not just some isolated incident, what's wrong with the Amish?) living their lives in a "questionable" or disgusting way. That's just life. Letting some people become insular and weird is the price of freedom from the complete insanity of centralized power. In most cases, it's none of my business...and cases like the Manson family or sexually/physically abusive cults - which already happen in OUR world, not just a libertarian world mind you - would still be dealt with similarly by any justice system, whether federal, state, local, or privatized. Anyway, the vast majority of people would not separate into their own little Texas Chainsaw Massacre communities; the point is decentralization of power, not tribalism and the breakdown of large economies.

[tremendoustie]

what if she was brainwashed by her family to believe she had no rights, like Precious? She was lucky she knew she was violated, and where to find help, or else, who knows, she just might be happy with it (and are we to tell her otherwise in that case?)

I think it depends on her age/maturity. If she's old enough to be capable of making decisions for herself, then it'd be wrong to forcibly step in. If she's three years old, to take it to the extreme case, she doesn't have the capability to consent.

[Mini-Me]

government prevents rape? :confused:

constituent, you need to remember that all of these crimes peacepotpaul is talking about were committed in a libertarian society. If we only had government, none of them would have happened!

[dannno]

no, it's not difficult to deal with, just whether you believe certain freedoms are worth sacrificing for the good of preventing rape (if it's such a bad thing to you).

Can you show me where sacrificing freedoms has led to a decrease in instances of rape?

The government has already decided to put sex criminals on public lists and not allow them to live in certain areas, and it turns out that it has caused homelessness of sex criminals to triple. It turns out that homeless sex criminals are far more likely to commit more sex crimes against children, so these laws have inadvertently caused sex crimes to increase.

[constituent]

constituent, you need to remember that all of these crimes peacepotpaul is talking about were committed in a libertarian society. If we only had government, none of them would have happened!

Well someone's got to save use from ourselves. ;) :D

[peacepotpaul]

Can you show me where sacrificing freedoms has led to a decrease in instances of rape?


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

maybe I'm not supposed to see something, and my biases are making me think there's a pattern



The government has already decided to put sex criminals on public lists and not allow them to live in certain areas, and it turns out that it has caused homelessness of sex criminals to triple. It turns out that homeless sex criminals are far more likely to commit more sex crimes against children, so these laws have inadvertently caused sex crimes to increase.

I'm not sure that's a unilateral government decision against the will of the people, and isn't keeping criminals homeless much better than keeping them comfortable where they can hide and shower away their evidence?

[constituent]

I'm not sure that's a unilateral government decision against the will of the people, and isn't keeping criminals homeless much better than keeping them comfortable where they can hide and shower away their evidence?

your logic failed; you looked like an idiot, and now you're just being crude in hopes that it will... what, exactly?

[Anti Federalist]

You assume they know where and how to get out.
That's like saying there's no cage on your house and children are free to leave their parents if they hate them.

Certainly better than the cult called government, which really does put up razor wire, minefields and and guards to shoot your ass if you try to escape.


when it's the government preventing rape, criminals will have no choice but to accept it.

Government prevents rape?

Then why is there still rape?

There sure is a surfeit of government.

[MelissaWV]

You used the Amish as an example, and dug up one instance of rape to bolster your case. The thing is that, to most of us, the fact that the Amish women cited got out of the community only bolsters the case for having multiple options. Suppose the entirety of the world were "Amish"? Where precisely would she have gone for justice in that case? Insular communities do have their own definitions of "right" and "wrong" sometimes, it's true. This goes on in spite of imposed governance. The Government did not prevent that woman's rape, nor the myriad rapes that go on in the nation every single day.

Government has been tried, and the larger it is, the more the innocent are affected (the guilty go on doing what they like, or else they wouldn't be criminals in the first place, would they?). Wouldn't you like the system you participate in to be of your choosing and funding? Don't people take care of things way better when they are involved in the day-to-day running of those things?

There is no perfect solution that will cause people to stop being people, and one of the very predictable things about humans is that some of us will do sick things to others of us.

[dannno]

isn't keeping criminals homeless much better than keeping them comfortable where they can hide and shower away their evidence?

What part of this:


It turns out that homeless sex criminals are far more likely to commit more sex crimes against children, so these laws have inadvertently caused sex crimes to increase.

Did you fail to read?


What on earth makes you think that somebody who is homeless is going to be less likely to commit a crime than somebody who has a comfortable home?

[ChaosControl]

sounds like you're saying, intervention is OK as long as you believe somebody was violated (and then, it'd be up to the intervener to define what he believes is "violation", isn't that how CPS takes children?)

It needs limits. If obvious object harm was caused, I think action is warranted.
I don't believe in government initiating force, but I have no problem with government responding against someone who initiated force.

You rape someone = you go to jail.

[dannno]

Ideas to meditate on.


You used the Amish as an example, and dug up one instance of rape to bolster your case. The thing is that, to most of us, the fact that the Amish women cited got out of the community only bolsters the case for having multiple options. Suppose the entirety of the world were "Amish"? Where precisely would she have gone for justice in that case? Insular communities do have their own definitions of "right" and "wrong" sometimes, it's true. This goes on in spite of imposed governance. The Government did not prevent that woman's rape, nor the myriad rapes that go on in the nation every single day.

Government has been tried, and the larger it is, the more the innocent are affected (the guilty go on doing what they like, or else they wouldn't be criminals in the first place, would they?). Wouldn't you like the system you participate in to be of your choosing and funding? Don't people take care of things way better when they are involved in the day-to-day running of those things?

There is no perfect solution that will cause people to stop being people, and one of the very predictable things about humans is that some of us will do sick things to others of us.