Milutin writes:
> Martin wrote:
> >Why will they have a difficult time?  There won't be any government to
> stop them, unless you admit that these different "orgs" will be
> sovereign states that will be at war with one another, which will be
> the case, just as it is now only with many more waring factions.
>
> I'm playing the shear numbers game.  If a murder wants to murder someone,
> those within the community will defend the possible victim from murder and
> even chase down the murder if he/she is able to murder the person.

We used to do this in the US.  It was called a lynch mob.

> Why is their going to be a war?  A war occurs if one org wants to take
> something from another.  That org will defend itself, of course.  And maybe
> other orgs will step in and defend that org as well, a show of solidarity
> and support.

You're talking about warfare, not war.  You can use the term "cold
war" if you want.  Sovereigns are generally in a state of cold war
with each other.  Your sovereign orgs wouldn't be any different.

> And so, the orgs that want to dominate others will lose all their
> battles, because the majority of people don't want to rule others,
> just a elite few.

I keep forgetting.  You are being repressed.

> >> Islamist and Christians don't have to go to the same school, they can
> have different ones.  Of course, we rather them do and all we would have to
> do is teach them everything.  Don't deny them the different beliefs on how
> life was created or how life should be lived.  Teach them all of it and
> allow them to choose.
>
> >It's astonishing how you can continue to wax poetic on the virtues of
> multi-culturalism while ignoring the real issue.  Since you don't admit to a
> unifying set of rules for all this "orgs", they are all sovereign states.
> They will be at war with each other as all sovereign states are.  Don't
> confuse war with warfare.
>
> They then can just avoid each other.  If two orgs can't be fifteen
> feet from the other, then just avoid the org that is bothering you.

ok.  So the US org decides it wants the land the Canada org lives on.
Your solution is to move awy.  Where do you plan to go?  If you you
don't like those numbers, then make it smaller.  The Martin org wants
the Milutin org's house.  I expect you to be out in 24 hours.  Whoever
has the most NATO-like friend orgs will win.  You will form a NATO
group of orgs who agree to defend each other, ie you will form a
larger org.  Eventually it will be like the US org, and one day, the
Milutin sub-org will say "I'm being repressed, and I want out." The US
org will say, "See ya, Milutin. Write if you find work. Now get out!"

> >>>The left is definitely on the wrong track.  Not everyone is on the left.
> You can't have a society that only includes left thinkers. There will always
> be fundamentalists of every flavor.  There will always be conservatives,
> fascists, and the just plain stupid. Whatever you come up with must account
> for all these loose cannons. To answer your question, nothing has changed.
> People are as they always have been, cooperative sometimes, uncooperative at
> others. Competitive, criminal, clever, evil, stupid, and ignorent.
>
> >>"Whether the instinct for freedom is real or not, we do not know. If it
> is, history teaches that it can be dulled, but has yet to be killed. The
> courage and dedication of people struggling for freedom, their willingness
> to confront extreme state terror and violence, are often remarkable...By
> denying the instinct for freedom we will only prove that humans are a lethal
> mutation, an evolutionary dead end; by nurturing it, if it is real, we may
> find ways to deal with dreadful human tragedies and problems that are
> awesome in scale." -- Noam Chomsky
>
> >Like that addresses the issue of the left being on the wrong track.
>
> The left, or what I know of it, doesn't say, "Convert everyone into
> lefties!"  Instead says "Give them a society which allows people to believe
> what they want and live how they want."

I'm all for it.  I live in a society that is close to it.

> You agrue that we should deny the instinct for freedom because you already
> know what sort of society is good for us.

Where did that come from?  I don't argue that at all.

> I say, like any Anarchist should, allow the people within that society to
> make that choice.

Fine.  Now, when they make that choice, they have to live by that
choice, right?  Otherwise they haven't made a choice.  What about the
49% who lost the vote?

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