Us Now - How we are innovating around the control of government

simplistic2

The film Us Now shows how using technology we are creating new structures of organisation that enable people live without hierarchical government control systems.

http://watch.usnowfilm.com/

The film highlights the sheer power of mass collaboration and how effective self regualtion works in many of the interesting business models used as examples.

I hope this film helps open peoples eyes to the beauty we can have in the world once the concept of govenment dies forever.

What do you guys think?

Denerick

Wishy washy, improbable, and childish.

Everyone knows than anarchy will lead to the local thug maintaining control over the local populace. A sort of Tony Soprano x a million.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

Wishy washy, improbable, and childish.

Powerful, creative and deep.:D

Denerick wrote: »

Everyone knows than anarchy will lead to the local thug maintaining control over the local populace. A sort of Tony Soprano x a million.

I find it interesting that peoples biggest fear of freedom is the possibility of another government arising from it???

Denerick

You call it freedom, which undoubtedly it is. But a long time ago mankind came to the realisation that complete freedom is unessential when you have no personal safety whatsoever. Hence the social contract- in essence, a balance between liberty and safety that protects the most people whilst guaranteeing certain universal natural rights. Anarchism is for college kids who haven't gotten round to reading Locke

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Wishy washy, improbable, and childish.

Everyone knows than anarchy will lead to the local thug maintaining control over the local populace. A sort of Tony Soprano x a million.

Which is exactly what's going on today. Except the local thugs are well dressed, drive around in big cars and we call them out leaders.

Anarchy and revolution is a good form of a "reset" button at bringing down the establishments to the point from where civilisation can start again.

The only way the outcome can be different is when these "thugs" find a conscious and work towards the benefit of the people rather than filling up their pockets and expanding control.

Anarchy will not bring any change until people change themselves first.

Denerick

af_thefragile wrote: »

Which is exactly what's going on today. Except the local thugs are well dressed, drive around in big cars and we call them out leaders.

Anarchy and revolution is a good form of a "reset" button at bringing down the establishments to the point from where civilisation can start again.

The only way the outcome can be different is when these "thugs" find a conscious and work towards the benefit of the people rather than filling up their pockets and expanding control.

Anarchy will not bring any change until people change themselves first.

I often wonder, who's going to lead this 'change'? Who decides what this 'change' is? You're as authoritarian as any the rest of them mate.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

I often wonder, who's going to lead this 'change'? Who decides what this 'change' is? You're as authoritarian as any the rest of them mate.

Some people just like to oppose everything.

Who was it who said "Be the change you wanna see in the world"?
Gandhi is a good example of how anarchism managed to topple over the British empire in India.

What did he do? He didn't decide to fight the British but just not to cooperate with them. It was a form of Anarchy when he rejected the British rule in India and decided to do things his own way.

Anyway, You don't need a leader to change. Neither do you need someone to tell you what to change into. You change into what you believe is right and the best for you and humanity. Morality is universal and not relative.

I'm not telling anyone to change into anything. How does that make me authoritarian? When I actually believe people should be free to live their lives they way they want to. I do believe though people should be educated enough and become smart enough to have the capacity to decide what is best for them and not just blindly follow whatever the bureaucracies tell them to do.

And yes, I believe people should be able to put the ideals of progressing humanity and developing the nation (and the world) before their own personal interests. As JFK said, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". I believe people should become more compassionate towards those who aren't as fortunate as us (like the poor in this country and the poor in the 3rd world) and help them through charity and development. I believe people should become more tolerant of others and learn to live together peacefully as humans.

If all of this makes me authoritarian then yes, I am authoritarian.

It is not often you find a Che Guevara coming to bring a change to the system. Neither do you need to go looking out for one. I actually believe just be a good person yourself and live a proper moral life. If everyone just does that then the change will take place itself without the need of any bloodshed and tears.

Denerick

Your adulation of Che Guevara speaks volumes. More than any reasoned argument could ever convey

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Your adulation of Che Guevara speaks volumes. More than any reasoned argument could ever convey

And your lack of coming up with any sound arguments rather than half witted comments explains it all.

I've said what I had to here. Peace.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

You call it freedom, which undoubtedly it is. But a long time ago mankind came to the realisation that complete freedom is unessential when you have no personal safety whatsoever.

And I hope that after the immoral slaughter and imprisonment of millions people just may start to question the reality of that statement?

The reality is that nobody has to hand over their freedom in exchange for the cushy fantasy of protection. Where does this belief stem from? I think its just an emotional reaction against admitting the reality that the political class see most people as timber to throw on the statist fire that keeps them warm at night. It seems to be so painful to admit that these people dont give a damn and never have.

Denerick wrote: »

Hence the social contract- in essence, a balance between liberty and safety that protects the most people whilst guaranteeing certain universal natural rights. Anarchism is for college kids who haven't gotten round to reading Locke

The social contract just like keynesian economics arent used because they are rational theories they are used because they best justify the actions of the ruling class.


Here is the true history of human ownership...im not quite sure where this flowery social contract fits in. :pac:

Denerick

simplistic2 wrote: »

And I hope that after the immoral slaughter and imprisonment of millions people just may start to question the reality of that statement?

The most dangerous idea in the world is one that earnestly believes that some kind of social utopia is possible. Its not. The social contract is not an ideal situation at all - far from it. Its a compromise. Adults learn to compromise. Wild animals learn to compromise if all risk slaughter. Its the building block of human rationality - personal liberty + personal safety. That is all that I want. If my liberty impinges on another mans safety, then my liberty no longer becomes something precious and valuable to me, but painful and dangerous to my neighbour. The devil is in the details. Balance and compromise are not dirty words you know! Ideological purity died out as a viable concept years ago, when people realised that one group killing people in the interests of their narrow idea's of perfection is simply not worth it and morally outrageous.

The reality is that nobody has to hand over their freedom in exchange for the cushy fantasy of protection. Where does this belief stem from? I think its just an emotional reaction against admitting the reality that the political class see most people as timber to throw on the statist fire that keeps them warm at night. It seems to be so painful to admit that these people dont give a damn and never have.

You seem to confusing Stalinism with Liberal Democracy.

The social contract just like keynesian economics arent used because they are rational theories they are used because they best justify the actions of the ruling class.

Is that a quote from 'how to talk like a Marxist'?

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

The most dangerous idea in the world is one that earnestly believes that some kind of social utopia is possible. Its not. The social contract is not an ideal situation at all - far from it. Its a compromise. Adults learn to compromise. Wild animals learn to compromise if all risk slaughter. Its the building block of human rationality - personal liberty + personal safety. That is all that I want. If my liberty impinges on another mans safety, then my liberty no longer becomes something precious and valuable to me, but painful and dangerous to my neighbour. The devil is in the details. Balance and compromise are not dirty words you know! Ideological purity died out as a viable concept years ago, when people realised that one group killing people in the interests of their narrow idea's of perfection is simply not worth it and morally outrageous.

The problem is that people believe it to be their comprise whereas the reason you have more freedoms is because you are more productive when believe your free. You provide a larger tax base for the ruling class. You are granted certain liberties because economic freedom produces more wealth.

I dont believe we can have a utopia its nonsense but we can always improve and we do always improve. The best improvement that I can see is moving to a voluntary system. The system we live in is immoral. How can you justify the use of violence against people that is not in self defence?

The very problem is that people comprimise, where if people stuck to the non-aggression principal and followed it through applying it to individuals,groups institutions and governments a voluntary society will emerge. It will take years but the moral argument always wins.


[/QUOTE]

Hazlittle

All great civilisation came from anarchy.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

All great civilisation came from anarchy.

Really? If this is the case (Which it isn't), is that not in itself proof that anarchy is a pipe dream? Someone will always find a way to accrue political capital and form their own state. Be this an enlightened movement of constitutionalists, or local thugs with guns, it matters little In the real world, anarchy is impossible, and most grow out of it by their 21st birthday.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Really? If this is the case (Which it isn't), is that not in itself proof that anarchy is a pipe dream? Someone will always find a way to accrue political capital and form their own state. Be this an enlightened movement of constitutionalists, or local thugs with guns, it matters little In the real world, anarchy is impossible, and most grow out of it by their 21st birthday.

I take you never read any anarchist books?

Look at the ancient history of Ireland and Iceland then come back to me.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I take you never read any anarchist books?

Look at the ancient history of Ireland and Iceland then come back to me.

Dunno about Iceland but ancient Ireland was far from an anarchical society (unless you mean a rough, corrupt society which would be true). From a previous post by me;

Dodgy historical research there, with ridiculous conclusions and misrepresentations.
For one thing, Irish society was remarkable for it's homogenity. This carried over onto it's laws. The classic definition by Binchy held Irish society as "tribal, rural, hierarchical and familiar". Ó Cróinin defined Irish law as having "the edifice of law standing above all local and regional rivalries as a unified system of custom and practice. (Early Medieval Ireland 400-1200, p.112)
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that it is a mystery how the law came about as an edifice. The most likely explanation being that it was preserved over from the times when there was a strong central High King, who even when his kingdom was fragmented, the laws were carried on by the learned order; priests, lawyers and poets.
Crimes against society existed (betrayal of the Tuath to the enemy)
Irish society at the time was also incredibly hierarchial, with four different law tracts determining the different legal grades (and treatment) accorded to different types of aristocrats and so on. Hardly egalitarian.

Eoin Mac Neill noted that in order to succeed kingship, he must belong to the same derbfine of the previous king (father, son, grandson, greatgrandson) Only if he was a member of the derbfine was he electable (along with other criteria like not missing any body parts and be a man of property as he was expected to maintain royal officials). While it would not be the same kind of vast estates as the Merovingian kings had, Ó Cróinín notes that it clearly precluded the common man from being king, ensuring it was a sort of oligrarchical structure.
In addition, the king had numerous other rights which would horrify any modern libertarian such as the right to treasure trove (which was banned from applying to non-monarchs) In addition, the king was to be a judge himself, as the judicial office belonged to the king (although he could delegate this to a lawyer). The king was also usually above the law, as were his muire. If the king was to be chastised, then a whipping boy ('substitute churl' was used to represent him, to prevent dishonour on his office unless he committed an extremely serious offence. In any case, the damages were usually born by the 'substitute churl' rather than the king himself.

Furthermore, Irish society was incredibly patriarchal. Women were subject to their husbands/fathers/ fine head. Most of their rights were constrained to allowing divorce if the husband was impotent/unable to have sex/gay etc. One of my favorite law tracts had it that a woman who went into a mead house unaccompanied and who was then raped was not actually raped. The logic went that only a whore would go into a mead house unaccompanied. Likewise, if a woman was in a relatively public place and didn't cry out then she couldn't claim to be raped. Best of all, if a man was only able to support one parent, he was told to "leave his mother in a ditch and carry home his father to his house.

The basis of the entire society was also based on clientship; the lord advanced a grant/stock/land to his clients and recieved rent and services in return, while the most important unit in society was the familly and not the individual. The law was even based around the preconception that farming would be done cooperatively. Hardly a free market capitalist society as Simplistic 2 claims.

My favorite point is where he claimed that "minor brawls" ensued. Ireland at the time was an utter mess in constant states of warfare.The vikings get a lot of stick for raiding monasteries, when it was usually Celtic Irish who were doing most of the raiding. The reason Ireland wasn't getting involved in large scale warfare as seen across Europe was that they were too busy fighting each other to be able to muster any sort of warfare. Not surprising in a society where clan feuds were recognised as a legitimate and proper part of the legal order.

This is all before the Church is brought into the equation with it's church taxes, paruchiae (which functioned as effective confederate states themselves) and so on. Religious law was also commonplace, which was an effective parallel to secular law.

If you simply must denote this as having the absence of a state, then some corrupted form of a hierarchical anarcho-syndicalism (communitarianism?) is far more apt. Certainly not capitalist or free market. How a hierarchical and patriarchal society can be seen in any way as libertarian or anarchistic is beyond me.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I take you never read any anarchist books?

What, you mean propaganda?

Look at the ancient history of Ireland and Iceland then come back to me.

Don't lecture me about history. You make a patently incorrect comment and then just end the conversation with a pathetic blasé attitude. And besides, Ireland or Iceland were never 'great' civilisations.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

What, you mean propaganda?



Don't lecture me about history. You make a patently incorrect comment and then just end the conversation with a pathetic blasé attitude. And besides, Ireland or Iceland were never 'great' civilisations.

Freedomain radio has everything well laid out and backed up. Whatever people consider a great civilisation themselves would be the basis of what one could consider a great civilisation. I'd pick Iceland and Ireland from an early period. The Sumerians and the Indus Valley. Egypt and Rome were great in the begining but in my opinion went downhill after their power became more centralised.

I'm not a keyboard warrior so you wont be seeing any long detailed posts coming from me, just random comments and the occasional link. Thats how I role.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

Freedomain radio has everything well laid out and backed up. Whatever people consider a great civilisation themselves would be the basis of what one could consider a great civilisation. I'd pick Iceland and Ireland from an early period. The Sumerians and the Indus Valley. Egypt and Rome were great in the begining but in my opinion went downhill after their power became more centralised.

I'm not a keyboard warrior so you wont be seeing any long detailed posts coming from me, just random comments and the occasional link. Thats how I role.

What a character.