>> Simple question, is an Labour party, which has rules and structure, a
government?!?!?!?!?!?
>> No, it is an organization.

I meant to say "Labour union".  That is not a government.

>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.

No such thing as an "anarchist government".  It can pretend it is
anarchistic, but if it really was made of diehard anarchists, the government
would dissolve itself.  Not much of a government, if you ask me.

But I disagree that an anarchist organization is non-coercive in nature.  It
can be, it just needs a majority vote from all its members before it could act.

>> 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.

Hey, I didn't know F. Leon said that, cool!

But anyhoot, earily on you forgot some major things.  "forcing everyone to
follow your blueprints will be a bit of a problem" because your within an
democratic organization.  It will always be a problem in forcing people to
listen to you.

There are will always be "problems with standardization of construction
techniques and quality of workmanship", unless it is a perfect world and
everyone knows how to do everything prefectly.

Why would someone want to live with you someone you didn't like.  How will
that person force you to accept him/her.  Others, within that org, will say
"Hey, shouldn't you be allowed to live with who you want?" and they will
stop that person from forcing themselves upon you.

Of course, if that person wanted to live in your house because he/she didn't
have a place to live, then the right thing to do is build him/her a house.

Or maybe the org of 20 will decide to build 20 houses for them to all live
in separate and they can decide to personalize the design of each house to
their liking.

Martin, it seems you have no belief in the power of common sense.  You
entire paragraph goes from okay, to bad, to just plain dumb.

>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?

Unlike Canada because I don't have the choice to leave.  They act like they
own the land.  You cannot own anything you did not create, trade for, or
given by someone else.

>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.

Martin forgot what social means, see previous email!

>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.

Martin, of course I cannot offer a practical view of what a sort of
government(I think you mean society here) should look like or how it should
operate.  But then again, I am a sort of anarchist who thinks that I never
had such power and only those within that society can make that choice.

>> 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.

LOL.  WOW, you do have such a great faith in human common sense and ability
to solve problems.

But then again, I am a fool and I don't believe humans can do such simple
taskes.

Who will train the qualified doctors!?!?
Who will protect my childred from harmful drugs?!?!
Who will teach me to use the tolient?!?!
Who will stop the sun from falling from the sky!?!?

Martin, listen up.

GROW UP!

>> 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?

You know, two humans go at it(male and female) and then comes out another human.

>> 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.

YES, if an org is designed like a capitalist society, etc, it will have huge
problems when they try to exploit other orgs because they will not be
allowed to.  And then the capitalist org(now much more like a government)
will fall apart(because members will leave due to the bad conditions).

>> 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?

Unless I want to suffer(the streets aren't that clean).  Of course, me
making that choice doesn't mean much.  But if 50 percent of Canadain society
makes that choice, that's another story.

>> 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?

Maybe Norway doesn't have it, but it is called corporate welfare and yes,
almost any needy corp can apply and receive much needed funds.

Also, the Canadain government won't follow laws it created(funny, isn't it)
and that pisses me off too(because those laws are pro-human but anti-business).

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

We're not their yet(not everyone else see the problem as clearly).  But we
shouldn't give up hope of a better future just because our present is so bad.

>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.

Your life may be great, I can't say.  But who suffers while you smile?

Wait, just as I was typing this, my cd player was playing this, good timing,
eh?:

[talking]
We gotta make a change...

It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes.
Let's change the way we eat,
let's change the way we live
and let's change the way we treat each other.
You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do what we gotta do,
to survive.

[rapping]
And still I see no changes
can't a brother get a little peace
It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty
they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me
And I ain't never did a crime I ain't have to do
But now I'm back with the blacks givin' it back to you
Don't let 'em jack you up,
back you up,
crack you up
and pimp slap you up

You gotta learn to hold ya own
they get jealous when they see ya with ya mobile phone
But tell the cops they can't touch this
I don't trust this
when they try to rush I bust this

That's the sound of my tool
you say it ain't cool
my mama didn't raise no fool

[Changes by 2pac]

>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.

What sort of poverty do you refer to.  Poverty of wealth?  Maybe.

Your country may be an exception(not for long, just wait), but I look around
the world and see many governments.  This leads me to think one thing,
governments are bad and even though they are suppose to protect the weak,
they, more often then not, do not.

Let's get rid of them.

>> 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.

Your moral government never does this outright amoral things?  That can't be
the case, because it wouldn't survive in this capitalist world(not saying
that it would lose all its wealth, but that US bombs would be landing on
your doorstep.  The "threat of a good example" as Chomsky puts).

Wait, didn't your tax dollars help to "save" the Kosovars?  Great! And, at
the same time, "save" the Yugoslavs from Milosevic.


>But I probably won't be here.  The world is to big, and life is too short.

Where do you plan to go?

And even if you leave, you can always visit Norway and see the decline for
yourself.  (just like when you don't see a kid for a long time and say "Wow,
you have grown!", instead you'll say "Jesus Christ, what have you done while
I was gone?" and as they explain you'll think "Wasn't that annoying Miluto
who predicted this would happen to my lovely Norway.  Damn him if he knows
I'm thinking this!")

OUCH!  The truth does hurt.

Milutin

--
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal