Racists take note

[Universe Prince]

As a sidenote, UP we'll have to eventually stop this socialist/libertarian agreement stuff. It might permanently damage reputations

I know. If you would just stop being so reasonable all the time and start talking irrational gibberish like a real socialist... No, I'm kidding. I don't want that at all.

By the by, there is an article over at Reason Online you might be interested in reading. It's called "A Healthy Dose of Anarchy", and is about local, decentralized relief efforts in New Orleans. I'd be interested in reading your opinion of it, JS.

[Plane]

H.R. 3669 increases the amount that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can borrow from the U.S. Treasury to cover expenses of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). CBO estimates that H.R. 3669 will increase direct spending by $2 billion in 2006. The legislation does not affect revenues.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6658&sequence=0


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Won't be enough either , at least five billion more after that.

[_JS]

By the by, there is an article over at Reason Online you might be interested in reading. It's called "A Healthy Dose of Anarchy", and is about local, decentralized relief efforts in New Orleans. I'd be interested in reading your opinion of it, JS.

Honestly? I think it is brilliant. In areas where the federal and local government are clearly failing, the large organisations are obviously not getting things done either through their own failings or due to government issues, then this was an innovative and brilliant solution. Disaster relief as civil disobedience - damn straight!

In my view New Orleans was at something of a Hobbesian state of nature (a point where we might disagree). I don't think many of us will disagree that there were clearly failures by the governments and relief organisations to handle the aftermath of Katrina. Not only do I see no problem with the work done here by these people, but I love the idea. I mean, that's what it is really about isn't it? These are people pitching in to help one another and a community devestated. There's no fear of race (as implied at the Red Cross). There are just people pitching in to help other people.

As the article said, rules made with electricity don't always work when the electricity goes out.

[Universe Prince]

That you like the article so much is interesting to me. Because the whole situation, to me, smacks of libertarian style thinking. I have no idea what the political positions are of those involved in the relief efforts, but the whole notion that they were doing what the government either could not or would not do and even disobeying FEMA and the law to do it, that seems the epitome of "we don't need government" thinking in our culture. It was all done voluntarily and cooperatively without some government central planning and oversight committee making sure it all happened just so. Even the part in the article about "mutual aid", what better possible example could there be of people making voluntary exchange for mutual benefit? It's beautiful.

So how is it that a socialist and a libertarian seem to both like that article for similar reasons? I expect any time now word that hell is rapidly dropping in temperature.

[Amianthus]

they were doing what the government either could not or would not do and even disobeying FEMA and the law to do it,

That is actually the most telling thing about our society. They had to break the law to help out others in need.

[Universe Prince]

That is actually the most telling thing about our society. They had to break the law to help out others in need.

I know. How screwed up is that?

[Amianthus]

I know. How screwed up is that?

You know, I got a ticket once for stopping to help a stranded motorist (with children) in a blizzard. And the cop didn't even bother to call for help after giving me my ticket, he just left.

[Universe Prince]

You know, I got a ticket once for stopping to help a stranded motorist (with children) in a blizzard. And the cop didn't even bother to call for help after giving me my ticket, he just left.

There is something wrong with society when helping someone is a punishable offense. And this society seems to be so focused on acting like government is the only way to help people that it makes helping people without government nearly a crime. It's just bass ackwards.

[Mucho]

You know, I got a ticket once for stopping to help a stranded motorist (with children) in a blizzard. And the cop didn't even bother to call for help after giving me my ticket, he just left.

There is something wrong with society when helping someone is a punishable offense. And this society seems to be so focused on acting like government is the only way to help people that it makes helping people without government nearly a crime. It's just bass ackwards.

I am sure there is more to it than Amithst is letting on.

[Amianthus]

I am sure there is more to it than Amithst is letting on.

And you'd be wrong again, as usual.

[_JS]

That you like the article so much is interesting to me. Because the whole situation, to me, smacks of libertarian style thinking. I have no idea what the political positions are of those involved in the relief efforts, but the whole notion that they were doing what the government either could not or would not do and even disobeying FEMA and the law to do it, that seems the epitome of "we don't need government" thinking in our culture. It was all done voluntarily and cooperatively without some government central planning and oversight committee making sure it all happened just so. Even the part in the article about "mutual aid", what better possible example could there be of people making voluntary exchange for mutual benefit? It's beautiful.

So how is it that a socialist and a libertarian seem to both like that article for similar reasons? I expect any time now word that hell is rapidly dropping in temperature.

In this case the government was a detriment to the social good, or even more severe - the social need of the people. So there was a massive obstacle in the way of these individuals and groups providing aid to a destroyed community. The obstacle was circumvented and help was brought regardless. There is absolutely no reason that local communities, churches, or individuals cannot bring aid as well as any large organization.

Another way of looking at it is at the worker's level. Imagine a situation where a government and a large business work together to erode many workers' rights in a given area. The community might work together, across different sectors to form a Workers Council and take industrial action. It might not be legal, but I would certainly support it if there was collusion between the given government organisation and company (or companies). If they had to circumvent some roadblocks or other obstacles, that wouldn't bother me.

You know, I got a ticket once for stopping to help a stranded motorist (with children) in a blizzard. And the cop didn't even bother to call for help after giving me my ticket, he just left.

This is bullshit too. It helps lead to a society where people see stranded motorists or someone in obvious need and they just pass right by.

[Amianthus]

This is bullshit too. It helps lead to a society where people see stranded motorists or someone in obvious need and they just pass right by.

Well, I was always the kind of person who stopped to help people when I could. When I moved to Maryland, and this happened, I stopped. After I moved out of Maryland, I started again.

Actually, the judge said pretty much the same thing you did. Then he proceeded to give me "probation before judgement" and only charged me court costs.

[Universe Prince]

In this case the government was a detriment to the social good, or even more severe - the social need of the people. So there was a massive obstacle in the way of these individuals and groups providing aid to a destroyed community.

Personally, I think this is a situation more pervasive in our society than just this one instance.

The obstacle was circumvented and help was brought regardless. There is absolutely no reason that local communities, churches, or individuals cannot bring aid as well as any large organization.

You may be the first socialist I've encountered who gets that. I've tried explaining that to people before, and I always get told, essentially, if local communities, churches, or individuals could bring aid effectively then we wouldn't need government to do any of it, but they can't and therefore we do.

Another way of looking at it is at the worker's level. Imagine a situation where a government and a large business work together to erode many workers' rights in a given area. The community might work together, across different sectors to form a Workers Council and take industrial action. It might not be legal, but I would certainly support it if there was collusion between the given government organisation and company (or companies). If they had to circumvent some roadblocks or other obstacles, that wouldn't bother me.

Damn. I'm agreeing with you, again. In that situation, I would definitely support people working together to stand up for their rights. Though I should add, I think that situation of government and large business working together already exists to a degree. Not to the extent in your example exactly, but it exists in the form or regulations that are needlessly burdensome, hinder entrepreneurship and inhibit competition for large businesses. Which, I suspect, may be were we stop being in agreement.