Milutin writes:
> Martin wrote:
> >No.  It is a government.  A coalition is an alliance or union between
> groups factions or parties.  The alliance or union is specified by the
> structure and rules.  The parties agree to be bound by the structure and
> rules.  Their behavior is governed by the agreed system of rules. A
> government is the system by which a community is ruled.  A coalition
> of parties is a community.  A coalition with structure and rules is a
> government.
>
> Simple question, is an Labour party, which has rules and structure, a
> government?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> No, it is an organization.

Yes, it is a government.  the members of the party are governed by the
party rules.  I assume you mean the party government has no coercive
power, but in somes places, like Australia, members of parliament are
required to vote along party lines (I think that's how it is in Oz?).
Still, if what you mean by government is an institution with coercive
power, and that an anarchist government would be non-coercive, then
just call it a non-coercive government.

> >> Not everyone would have a veto, but they could leave the org if a law is
> passed and they hate it.
>
> >Then there is no coalition.  Even the Italian coalitions, which dissolve
> about once a year, are more stable than what you are proposing.
>
> Stable?  Your telling me that most people do not want to join
> organizations which can give them benefits?  Remember, if you want
> to build a house, it is much harder by yourself then if you join an
> org of 20 others and then build it.

Sure it is easier.  There might be some problems with standardization
of construction techniques and quality of workmanship, and if
something goes wrong, you'll have no recourse but to pull it down and
start again, and, of course, forcing everyone to follow your
blueprints will be a bit of a problem, since everyone gets to build
whatever he wants to build, and you can't force anybody to go away if
he wants to build a few extra bedrooms, and then of course he might
decide to just move his family in with you, and you can't stop them
unless you want to pull out the Winchester, but if they draw first,
well, like F. Leon says, in a just society you ought to be allowed to
kill people.

> >> A percentage for passing laws could be the regular 51 percent or whatever
> the people within the org want it to be.
>
> >Then the 49% who lose will leave the coalition.  Maybe not all of them, but
> people will leave whenever they want and people will join whenever they
> want, and there will never be enough stability to get things done.  And, the
> separate governments (coalitions) that will form to cater to all the special
> interests, will be sovereign states with respect to each other. As such,
> they will be at war with each other.
>
> (That was messed up, but I'll try to fix it)  Those 49 percent would all
> hate the law passed?  Not likely.
> They my disagree, but the benefits of staying within the org will keep them
> wanting to continue with the org.

Sort of like the way Canada is now, yes?

> If I get to vote 10 times and 4 times the vote goes my way, I'll be pretty
> happy.  Right now, I don't get to vote on laws so it never can "go
> my way".

You're saying you are against all the current laws in Canada.  I
believe you.  Anyone living in Canada who is not poverty stricken or
imprisoned unjustly, and who still feels acutely that the Canadian
government is repressing him, must have a warped view like that.
There are people like that.  They are ones who end up being coerced.

I'm sure the Canadian government ought to be moved a long way closer
to the ideal social democracy, but so far neither you nor anyone else
here has offered a practical view of what that government should
actually look like and how it would actually work.  I'm planning on
doing that myself, since no one else is, but I don't have the time
right now, unfortunately.

> If I'm still not happy, I can join an org that mostly agrees with me.  Yes,
> we are a "special interest" but no war will break out unless we try to
> control others outside our org(unlike governments!!!!!)

How will you prevent non-org members from selling cocaine to your
children?  Legalize cocaine?  I'm all for it.  How will you ensure
that non-org members who are doctors are actually qualified doctors?
Or do you mean that your org will just magically have enough of every
kind of profession your members need?  Yes, anarchism is so wonderful
that way.  There is plenty of everything for everybody; all the men
are handsome, the women are beautiful, and the children are above
average.

> >There are three kinds of stupid people, ignorant people, willfully
> ignorant people, and the simple-minded.  Ignorant people can
> leanr. Willfully ignorant people, like the parents who didn't teach
> their child to swim, more dangerous.  The simple-minded are what
> they are, and they don't have to be anything more.
>
> They are no less human then you and I and therefore deserve the same
> rights as you and I would(within an anarchistic society).

What do you mean by human?

> >It is their *responsibility*, unless they are simple-minded.  It
> *is* a fault, and it is certainly nobody else's fault, so it must be
> theirs.  Ignorance can only be eliminated through learning.
> Learning is best done by choice.  Simple-mindedness is forever.
>
> 95 percent of the American population does not know what motivited
> NATO to "save" Kosovo.  Who's fault is it for their ignorance.
> Certainly not the media.

According to your plan, it doesn't matter.  You can start your org and
the NATO org will still be the NATO org.  You can't stop it, because
"no war will break out unless we try to control others outside our
org".  Your org will stand by silently while NATO invades another
org, and according to you, that is as it should be.  If an org is
constructed that is not anarchist, it's their choice.  If NATO decides
to invade your org to save capitalism, well, you had a nice life.

> >Are you saying you are repressed by the Canadian government?  Tell us about
> your wretched life.  "A Day in the Life of Milutin".
>
> Well, in relative terms, it is excellent comparing to the children
> who made my running shoes.  But, that is my problem.  I don't want
> their blood and sweet on my shoulders.  So, how to I remove myself
> from this system of oppression and luxury?

One thing you can do is refuse to buy running shoes.  Have you done
that?

> Well, withdraw my support for my government by refusing to abide by
> their rules.  They give tons of money to this corps who are driving
> the slave industry.  So, not giving them my money anymore is the
> most effective way to protest this.

The Canadian government supports running shoe manufacturers?

> But, if I dare to be free, they will jail me.  And, now I'll become
> a slave of sorts and lose my freedom.

Just stop buying running shoes and publicize your refusal along with
everyone else.

> They say "If you want to be free, you cannot be moral, if you want
> to be moral, you cannot be free."  But I believe I can be free and
> moral, just not within this system.  Now, if I lose my freedom, then
> I'll be stuck in the same situation as the people I want to free.
> How much good can I do there?  But, if I remain free, but lose my
> morality, I can fight for the rest of my life and try to get others
> to join in a hope to regain other's freedom, all in a search for our
> own morality.  That is not "a day in the life of Milutin" but "the
> Milutin story".  And, if I had it my way, it would be your story
> too, and everyone else who profits off the backs of slaves.

I can't tell from this what you really think.  You sound conflicted,
like you can't decide whether you are free or not.  My running shoes
are made by New Balance.  I don't know where they are made, but I
think they are made in the US.  I don't own a car.  I don't own a
house.  I am free.

> >> Martin, I have this bad feeling that you're not even trying anymore.
>
> >I live in Norway.  The Norwegian government is the best I have ever
> seen.  Not perfect, always in need of fixing and tuning, but the
> best I have ever seen.

> LOL.  It is like saying, "oh, this dictatorship is the best I have ever
> seen.  With all this freedom, I sometimes forget it is a dictatorship."
> Well, governments are not a full blown dictatorship, but it still cannot
> achieve what humanity needs.

I think you just want to believe that everyone is as unhappy as you
are.  They're not.  I don't live in a dictatorship.  I live in a
system that is somewhere between constitutional oligarchy and
constitutional democracy.  It is the closest to constitutional
democracy I have ever seen.  It works well.  There is no poverty here
to speak of.

> The structure is flawed and therefore those within its reach can never be
> free and moral people.

I am free, and I am improving in the morality area.  You might
describe as immoral, but you're in a different org.

> But it is also important to ask, "Where is Norway headed?"  I have
> to sadly notify you that give Norway 10-20 more years and you'll
> still be saying "The Norwegian government is the best I have ever"
> but you will also add "But it isn't as good as it was 10-20 years
> ago".  Sad, but that is the reality of the situation and structural
> design of governments, including Norway.

We'll see in 10-20 years.  But I probably won't be here.  The world is
so big, and life is too short.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701