Cossacks again

"Man is born free," Rousseau said, "but everywhere he is in chains."

I'm down with that. Free good; chains bad. Yep.

Stands to reason, then, that freer is better. So any boundaries to freedom are worse, right?

Well, not quite.

Boundless freedom cannot be contained. Or sustained. In practice, it works about as well as the skinless balloon. Try to unleash freedom by taking away the rule of law and freedom will not survive. As attractive as the promised anarchist utopia might be, in reality anarchy is, at best, a fleeting transitional period during which the strong assert their rule over the weak. Anarchy, in other words, is not the final blossoming of freedom, but rather the first step towards authoritarianism. That is why I am not an anarchist (or, for that matter, a pacifist ).

I'm not saying anything new here, of course. This is one of the basic dynamics of liberal democracy and liberal economies -- figuring out how to maximize freedom without allowing it to spiral into anarchy and thus cease to be. Within that tradition of liberal democracy and liberal economy there's a broad array of opinion as to how best to strike that balance, and how best to ensure that there are checks and balances and accountability limiting the power of those entrusted with creating and enforcing whatever rules we decide are necessary. There's plenty of disagreement along that spectrum, but once you get past the hyper-heated hyperbole -- e.g., a libertarian troll equating Democratic economic policy with "Maoism" when that policy is well to the right of the Thatcher administration -- those disagreements clearly are along that spectrum. They are, in other words, diferrences of degree, not of kind.

What struck me listening to Steven Eke's BBC report on the Cossacks was that their perspective is not a part of this spectrum. Here was a glimpse of a different world -- one in which the idea of maximizing freedom was explicitly rejected: "Democracy doesn't suit us. We need a firm hand." Here was a difference in kind, rather than of degree.

It's worth noting, however, that Eke did not interview any Cossack women for his report. Listening to Eke's description of Cossack family life --

Cossack family values are simple, rigid, and to a Western eye, seem to come from another era. The men build the home and provide an income; the women cook, clean and give birth to children.

-- I couldn't help but wonder what the women had to say about their role in this hierarchy. My first thought was that they couldn't possibly be as happy about the status quo as Viktor Vasilyevich was. But then I thought of our friends the Prairie Muffins, who share this rigid, hierarchical approach to gender roles. What Eke writes of the Cossacks is just as true for the Prairie Muffins: "to a Western eye, [they] seem to come from another era."

In comments to the previous post, Raka suggests I'm misreading the Muffins -- that my disagreements with them are simply a matter of degree, not of kind. Our views, Raka says, just fall along different points of that spectrum of freedom, and so this difference is the same as, say, the difference between me and an overheated, hyperbolic libertarian.

That's possible -- others may be better acquainted with the Muffins and their outlook than I am. But I would go back to the comment that originally drew my attention to the Prairie Muffins:

"I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership."

That may stop short of "We need a tsar," but it seems headed in a similar direction. However else we might characterize the impulse at work there, I don't think it can be described as a desire to maximize freedom.

(Mostly unrelated P.S.: I kept typing "cassock" for "Cossack," so I was pleased to see that Webster's suggests the words might be related, with the former taking its name from the latter due to the clerical garment's resemblance of the people's "usual riding coat.")

Comments

[Ryan Ferneau]

Any overheated, hyperbolic libertarian in particular?

[M Groesbeck]

Attacking straw-man versions of anarchism really is one of the proudest traditions of social liberalism, isn't it? I'd be more coherent here if I weren't so irritated and disappointed. I expected better. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given a past sense of entitlement to leadership of community-based campaigns started by anarchist groups; in any case, it's another reminder of how even social democrats are more of a kind with authoritarian Libertarians (and "anarcho-capitalists") than with anarchists.

[Rich]

Fred:

What struck me listening to Steven Eke's BBC report on the Cossacks was that their perspective is not a part of this spectrum. Here was a glimpse of a different world -- one in which the idea of maximizing freedom was explicitly rejected: "Democracy doesn't suit us. We need a firm hand." Here was a difference in kind, rather than of degree.

I can't say that I agree, at least not wholly. True, the view expressed by the Coassack is not along the spectrum of liberal democracy, but it is on the spectrum of prevention of anarchy. Perhaps democracy is a balloon with a skin, while autocracy is a propane tank, but both are containers designed to contain particles, some of which are constantly trying to move in ways that are considered unacceptable.

I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.

That is a pretty odd view, especially given the order the arguments are listed in. One could at least make some valid arguments, of the "he who pays the piper calls the tune" variety that voting rights should be tied to property rights. I can think of no arguments to remove women's suffrage (no arguments with any basis in fact anyway). I don't favor either view, but always prefer views that I disagree with but understand to views that I find incomprehensible.

However else we might characterize the impulse at work there, I don't think it can be described as a desire to maximize freedom.

Obviously it isn't designed to maximize freedom, but neither is a ban on murder. Both are attempts to maximize "acceptable" freedom, however. I think (hope) that most of us agree that murder should be banned, while voting rights should not be restricted either by sex or property. But these are differences in degree, not in kind.

[Scott]

Boundless freedom cannot be contained. Or sustained.

Yes, but Fred, this government isn't big enough for you. You can therefore shut the fuck up about us cattle needing limits (set by our Compassionate(tm) superiors, such as yourself, of course).

The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

Why should you be the one to put limits on instead of the Religious Right? Don't they gleefully make the same claim you just did? Do you want "boundless freedom" from the Dobsons, Jenkins, and LaHayes of the world? Can I have as much freedom from Hillary! as a feminist wants from pro-lifers?

[Scott]

Come on Fred, explain how the rights of an individual win against the community when that community votes Republican (no, they can't spy on you w/o a warrant; no, they can't make you give birth to that baby) but not when that community votes for Compassionate Progressives (yes, they can tax anything they want; yes, they can regulate anything they want).

Sounds like the rights of the individual only matter when that individual is Fred Clark, Evangelical Journalist. He can say no to Republican communities (shut down his newspaper for saying the 'wrong' thing? No, Fred's rights are supreme), but God help anyone who says no to a community Fred agrees with.

'They' have something wrong w/ 'them' for holding 'submission' to be the highest virtue. Fred is Compassionate(tm) because he holds 'solidarity' to be the highest. The difference? Submission is submission to the view of the collective, as expressed in its leadership. However, solidarity is submission to the view of the collective, as expressed in its leadership. See how different Fred Clark, Evangelical Journalist, is from a muffin?

[LM]

Egad. Thanks for digging through the archives for me. I remembered reading that, but it's worse than I remembered. Then again, my life has taken some different turns so I'm left scoffing at this bit especially:

Prairie Muffins protect the innocence of their children, until such a time their children are mature enough to be exposed to potentially-harmful cultural influences.

*snort* I'm my family's scapegoat and both of my parents emotionally abused me. Long story short, I didn't realize how bad things were until I fell in love. That wasn't an easy thing for me to do, partially because I was so used to my parents taking issue with everything I did, so I really didn't see why anyone would love me. My parents damaged me more than any "potentially-harmful cultural influences" ever did because they ate away at my self-esteem. It's not because they're not Prairie Muffins, either. It's because they're people. People do stupid things. Families aren't immune to mistakes. Granted, that doesn't make things a whole lot easier for me, but I'll be OK now that I've finally moved out.

[Fred]

Scott --

I'm sure I've never said that solidarity is the highest virtue -- it's not even in the Top 3. (I suppose it could be seen as an expression of love, but really I would put it under justice and maybe a bit under temperance. This right here, dealing with your rageboy antics, that's fortitude.)

Nor would I -- or anyone who speaks English or has access to a dictionary -- define solidarity the way you do. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care what it means, you're just against it. If you have anything else to say, anything at all, then others might be interested in that. Another rant saying, "soliwhatchamacallit is bad!" or "Compassion is compascist!" is not going to interest anyone.

Your posts have become so relentlessly repetitive, and so utterly unrelated to whatever others might be saying, that readers have a better chance of finding something new, worthwhile, on-topic or interesting in the discountcanadiancialis spambot posts.

Seriously (not "seriously" as in, "what I said before was in jest," but seriously as in "Good Lord, *seriously*"), even you have to be finding you tiresome and boring at this point. Give it a rest or, at the very least, step away from the computer and only post when you're not in a blinding, incoherent rage and there's at least a slight chance that you're paying attention to what others are writing.

[Brandi]

Scott's so cross today. I wonder if his copy of Atlas Shrugged tore when he was trying to pry apart those stuck-together pages?

[Rich]

@Fred:

Given that you rarely resond to comments at all, your response to Scott has to be the ultimate example of feeding the troll.

@Scott:

I may be the most sympathetic person to your point of view who comments with any regularity to Fred's posts. Nevertheless, I find your recent volume of work annoying, and indeed offensive given that it rises to levels of vulgarity rarely seen at slacktivist. I don't think being a discourteous prick should be illegal of course, but just because something is and should be legal doesn't mean it's not discourteous. In short, I would die for your right to behave the way you do - but I don't believe you should behave that way, and I would prefer it if you didn't.

@Everyone:

I truly wonder if the Scott of recent months is the same Scott of old, or whether our current Scott is not some sort of sophisticated "parody of libertarian" spam bot.

[McJulie]

"Compassion is compascist!"

That will make me laugh forever.

You know, I actually read as much of the Muffin Manifesto as I could stand -- it is rather long -- and was left with the impression that, actually, I dislike these women intensely. The MM is unbelievably smug, and all the more so because of the self-conscious veneer of humility.

I grew up going to church with these women. They are unfailingly "nice" but when they look at you, rays of hot judgment shoot out of their eyes -- especially if you are female, and not one of them. And they tend strongly toward the passive-aggressive. They excel at manipulation and guilt trips and shame, and believe me, they can induce powerful shame even when you don't believe you've done anything wrong. Even if you'd do it again, a thousand times over.

Prairie Muffins are poison. Don't let the "nice" fool you. It's easy to be nice. Nice doesn't mean good.

[Axiomatic]

You're telling me that Libertarians can pass the Turing Test now? A frightening thought.

[MikeJ]

Scott is a valuable resource to this community. When asked why I burst into gales of laughter when someone mention libertarians, I point people here.

[Scott]

define solidarity the way you do.

Come on, Fred. You want someone applying for a job at WalMart that has lower pay and/or benefits than you think is 'moral' to show 'solidarity' and demand more, and are willing to legally enforce that by prohibiting the original, 'lower' offer. You want the person who is applying, if he disagrees w/ you about the job, to submit for his own good (and if he can't get hired for more, tough shit), even if you don't use the term 'submission' and prefer 'solidarity' instead.

Fred, I want the same "boundless liberty" when you try to legislate your morality that people here want when the religious right tries to enforce theirs, even in the face of having 51% of the idiots who showed up on election day supporting the enforcement of said morality.

When are you going to finally recognize that to people who don't walk in already sharing your political views, the Religious Left is no better than (or no different than) the Religious Right?

[Nick Lamb]

“Anarchy, in other words, is not the final blossoming of freedom, but rather the first step towards authoritarianism.”

I'd disagree completely, if you can achieve anarchy (rather than chaos) then you have reached a pinnacle of freedom. The problem isn't with anarchy, but with ourselves. We are not fit to govern ourselves, if left to our own devices we can be selfish, irresponsible and cruel, and so we must be governed. But that's not a desirable situation, nor an entirely inevitable one.

For Fred anarchy is something to be avoided at practically any cost, whereas for me it's a long term goal, one that makes sense of our conflict between freedom and responsibility - the ultimate goal is total freedom, but the price of total freedom is a tremendous weight of responsibility, we must equip ourselves, or at least future generations, to deal with that responsibility so that they can seize for themselves the boundless possibilities of freedom. I believe the 20th century saw great progress toward this objective, and I have great hopes for the 21st century.

[Fred]

Epiphany!

Have you ever seen Scott and Giblets in the same place at the same time? Me neither.

(The whole "Bow before Giblets! BOWWWW!" routine was funnier back on Fafblog.)

[hapax]

@Nick Lamb: So, in short, the "great hope" and "ultimate goal" of anarchism is for human beings to be something other than human beings?

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, but am genuinely curious. I can't read your post any other way.

[twig]

Well yeah, I'd like to be ruled by King Aragorn and Queen Arwen. Or Marcus Aurelius. That would be kickass.

It's a lot harder to justify the whole fantasy when - oh, hey - YOU get to be the one to submit to the abusive alcoholic husband or yeah, the king is doing a great job for those people over there but you and your entire family have to die now, thanks.

It's not even worth examining these as actual political beliefs with a rational base, because they're not.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

McJulie: Prairie Muffins are poison. Don't let the "nice" fool you. It's easy to be nice. Nice doesn't mean good.

I was Little Red Riding Hood in "Into the Woods" in middle school (yeah, we REALLY didn't understand what was going on; not quite sure what the theater teacher was thinking with that one) and one line from my big solo still sticks out in my mind:

"Nice is different from good."

[Jesurgislac]

Axiomatic: You're telling me that Libertarians can pass the Turing Test now? A frightening thought.

Axiomatic wins the thread!

[Arturus]

On the note of people who don't think women should vote.

Women, apparently, are to blame for socialism and possibly the end of colonialism. Hard to tell where exactly this guy stands.

[Otter]

Jesus warns against calling Scott a fool, but his comments bear a remarkable similarity to those of a high school sophomore who has just finished Atlas Shrugged. They are quite foolish. And so angry.

Like that sophomore, he seems to lack the most fundamental understanding of how US democracy was designed to maintain a maximum of individual freedom: a structure and basic set of principles guaranteeing freedom which can only be changed slowly and with near-unanimous agreement (Constitution and Amendments), and a continuing spectrum of regulations which are continually easier to change as they affect fewer people in less-important ways.

The Constitution's values are too progressive for Scott, but that's the answer to "how the rights of an individual win against the community when that community votes Republican [against the Constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights] (no, they can't spy on you w/o a warrant; no, they can't make you give birth to that baby) but not when that community votes for Compassionate Progressives [in agreement with the Constitution] (yes, they can tax anything they want; yes, they can regulate anything they want)."

Sorry Scott, but this is the United States. Love it or leave it.

[Nick Lamb]

hapax, I'd say that's either a very pessimistic reading or you have a rather narrow conception of what it means to be human. We don't expect children to be capable of resolving even trivial disagreements properly at first, if two toddlers want to play with the ball there's a good chance one of them will resort to violence. But somehow we manage to teach them that they mustn't do that, so that by primary school age they'll find some other way to resolve their differences more often than not. By middle school age we expect children to be acting responsibly enough that they can go unsupervised for hours at a time. Sometimes they exceed our expectations, sometimes they disappoint us. But they're still learning, and through the whole process they're quite human.

We can and do indoctrinate responsibility into our children, continuing and expanding this education should fit them for a world in which they have ever more choices, and must choose wisely for their own sake and other people's. I don't think the resulting people would be so different from us that they couldn't be considered members of the same species. They might seem, to steal a word from Christian theology, saintly. But the saints were men and women too. I'm not arguing that we can teach people not to be jealous, or not to be feel anger, but only that we can teach them to overcome those feelings and be better for it. Fred might even agree with me about that much.

[hapax]

@Nick Lamb: "I'm not arguing that we can teach people not to be jealous, or not to be feel anger, but only that we can teach them to overcome those feelings and be better for it. "

I desperately wish that I could agree with you, and I even do, on the basis of individual humans. But humanity in the aggregate? I keep harking back to a sociologist I knew who half-jokingly proposed as his doctoral thesis: "Sociological Principle #1: PEOPLE ARE STUPID. Corollary A: People can always be counted on to act against their own long-term best interests."

I admire you for your optimism, and would support you in your efforts. I definitely hope that someday I am proved wrong. Until that point, however, I can't endorse or support any sort of anarchic philosophy, any more than I can support the banning of chemotherapy (nasty, expensive, painful, makes you sick) on the pious wish that someday cancer will disappear.

[mmack]

Nevertheless, I find your recent volume of work annoying, and indeed offensive given that it rises to levels of vulgarity rarely seen at slacktivist

Give it a rest or, at the very least, step away from the computer and only post when you're not in a blinding, incoherent rage and there's at least a slight chance that you're paying attention to what others are writing.

Perhaps ScottBot V IS alive!

[Raka]

Rich's first post sums up most of my response.

I think the core of the problem (other than my general contrarian dickishness) is that I don't completely understand what Fred means by "freedom", so I might be disagreeing with something he's not actually saying. I was interpreting "freedom" as an abstract, a philosophical inclination in constant opposition to rule of law-- an opposition that neither must win, and can (and should) result in a wide scattering of positions for various issues in any given individual. For example, classic American conservatives lean towards freedom in fiscal matters and towards rule of law on social issues, while classic American liberals are reversed.

It's easy to define positions relative to other positions, but the spectrum of freedom/authority doesn't come with absolute value labels. So we end up with the George Carlin bit about how the road is full of maniacs going faster than you and morons going slower than you: the spectrum is full of extremists who promote greater freedom than you and reactionaries who advocate less (both in general and on specific issues).

What I didn't realize is that Fred apparently was using a set of conditions as a zero-point on this axis for the specific issue of governance:

a "tradition of liberal democracy and liberal economy ... to ensure that there are checks and balances and accountability limiting the power of those entrusted with creating and enforcing whatever rules we decide are necessary"

Any systems more free than this (which is where all of us presumably stand) have positive values of various magnitudes; anything less free than this is by definition "opposed to freedom". The Prairie Muffins are a similar case, where the zero-point is implicitly defined as a partnership with equal authority and full self-determination.

These are reasonable zero-points for conversational use of the word "freedom". I don't think there's anything universally and objectively special about them, but they're certainly sufficient for almost any common-sense discussion of policy in Western society. Unfortunately, my interpretation led me to believe Fred was saying that Cossacks and Muffins had an abstract objection to the concept of self-determination itself, when he was actually saying that their position on certain issues is past the zero-point on his axis.

At least I think that's what he's saying. On the other hand, that seems to directly conflict with the "different in kind" statement, so maybe not.

[Geds]

Nick Lamb: For Fred anarchy is something to be avoided at practically any cost, whereas for me it's a long term goal, one that makes sense of our conflict between freedom and responsibility - the ultimate goal is total freedom, but the price of total freedom is a tremendous weight of responsibility, we must equip ourselves, or at least future generations, to deal with that responsibility so that they can seize for themselves the boundless possibilities of freedom. I believe the 20th century saw great progress toward this objective, and I have great hopes for the 21st century.

For the record, as a student of history, this particular sentiment gives me chills. It echoes the optimism placed in science at the tail end of the 19th Century and the belief that the Modern Age would allow man to overcome all previous mistakes.

We then got World War I and World War II and suddenly that optimism for the wonderful future was a bit tarnished.

Granted, unrestrained anarchy is quite different than unrestrained Nationalism, but a million little holocausts really aren't that different from one big Holocaust. And if we give people that ability to do whatever they want with no consequence, history shows us that people tend to regress toward baser instinct...

[Raka]

Am I the only one who has trouble establishing the grammatical person when replying to Fred's posts? Second-person just feels... presumptuous somehow. It's like I'm only comfortable addressing the posts themselves, which presumably appear ex nihilo. If Fred, the Source of All Posts, should choose to look upon my words, then I am gladdened; but to use the second person would seem to presume-- or worse, demand-- that he do so. Maybe I need some sort of comment intercessor to take on the burden of carrying my rambling diatribes up the hill.

Okay, I probably am the only one.

[Geds]

Raka:

So are you suggesting that we form some sort of clergy of the Church of Slacktivist?

Because that would be deliciously ironic.

[Raka]

Raka: So are you suggesting that we form some sort of clergy of the Church of Slacktivist?

That seems like a lot of effort just to placate my neuroses. But yeah, if such a thing were to come about, I'm sure you'd find me among the laity.

[wintermute]

Geds: It's too late to set up a Church of Slactivism; it schismed (despite not existing) into a dozen other churches (which also do not exist) long ago.

[LL]

I'm libertarian inclined, and yet I find Scott tiresome as well. It's because of shit like this: "You can therefore shut the fuck up about us cattle needing limits."

It's Fred's bandwidth, he can do what he likes with it. You're free to stop reading this blog and create one of your own. And take a fucking pill while you're at it. Just a suggestion, I'm not trying to legislate taking a pill or raising taxes to force you to take a pill, just sayin'.

[Geds]

It's too late to set up a Church of Slactivism; it schismed (despite not existing) into a dozen other churches (which also do not exist) long ago.

Good point. What should we call Scott's denomination?

[damnedyankee]

Good point. What should we call Scott's denomination?

Libertarianist Schmuckism.

[thebewilderness]

There are people who, for whatever reason, declare that were it not for the hope of heaven, and the fear of God, they would be ravening monsters of murder and mayhem. Unfortunately they seem to think that everyone else is just like them, and so, would find peace and security under the heavy hand of oppression.
As a member of the recalcitrancy, I cannot object to their right to enslave themself, however, I am outraged that they presume to have the right to enslave their children.

[hapax]

"What should we call Scott's denomination?"

Dunce Scottism?

[Geds]

I cannot object to their right to enslave themself, however, I am outraged that they presume to have the right to enslave their children.

Well said. I think that about sums up the issue...

[cjmr]

"What should we call Scott's denomination?"
hapax: Dunce Scottism?

And hapax wins the thread!

[hapax]

Didn't Axiomatic already win?

Don't let the "nice" fool you. It's easy to be nice. Nice doesn't mean good.

I can't read this line without thinking of Granny Weatherwax from the Discworld novels, who's on the opposite end from the muffins: she's one of the good guys, but that doesn't mean she's nice about it.

Unrelatedly, and at the risk of encouraging Scott, I have to note my confusion at the phrase "even if you don't use the term 'submission' and prefer 'solidarity' instead." It's one thing to attribute thoughts and motivation to Fred -- these things are beyond our knowing, so any accusation might be correct. But when you talk about what terms Fred uses, to the point of using quotation marks, in response to a post that doesn't use the word "solidarity" at all, it seems a little strange. Using the handy google search box in the upper right corner of the page, I find that Fred has used the word only thirteen times in nearly four years of blogging, and only one of those posts, dated March 15 2006, supports anything like the interpretation Scott is giving it -- and that since that post, Scott has complained on five occasions, months apart, about how "Communists like Fred prattle on about 'solidarity'". Is Scott confusing Fred with some other blogger, or does he just have enough of a bee in his bonnet about the word "solidarity" that a passing comment from last March still upsets him?

[Turcano]

Well yeah, I'd like to be ruled by King Aragorn and Queen Arwen. Or Marcus Aurelius. That would be kickass.

That's true of most people. The problem is that you're much, much more likely to end up with a Joffrey Baratheon or a Caius Caligula. I don't know about you, but I don't like those odds one bit.

[clew]

Not Marcus Aurelius -- I would like to have dinner with him, but I would prefer to be ruled by someone whose reign was notable for peace and diplomatic success.

Less trivially, note that the comment way above that "it isn't designed to maximize freedom, but neither is a ban on murder." is nonsense -- a ban on murder recognizes that the freedom of being alive is greater than the freedom to murder someone.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Didn't Brandi really win the thread? I mean, really. Reread that contribution and consider it in your hearts, people:

Scott's so cross today. I wonder if his copy of Atlas Shrugged tore when he was trying to pry apart those stuck-together pages?

You know you love it.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

I have to agree with Fred that anarchy is not the maximum setting for freedom. Perhaps under the rule of law I am not free to drive at any speed nor in any direction on any linear selection of land that I choose, but under anarchy I am not free to walk along the sidewalk with any reasonable assumption of safety.

The reason anarchy is less free than rule of law is, anarchy immediately devolves into Might Makes Right. Maximum freedom is never an option; in a system where everything is permitted, there is no protection from those who don't have their fellow humans' best interests at heart. They do what they can get away with, victimizing whosoever they can; perhaps the bullies get maximum freedom but their victims get less than they would under rule of law. Maximum freedom for all remains impossible.

Given the choice between the rule of law and the rule of bully, I'd like to go with the system that at least has protection of the weak and of the rights of the minority written into its design (for all that its plans oft gang awry in implementation).

That aside, I am confused as to how Nick Lamb says "we are not fit to govern ourselves" and yet the whole thread calls him an optimist. Am I missing a link in the logic chain here? Was "we are not fit to govern ourselves" modified by some later dependent clause that I missed?

[Jesurgislac]

All have won, and all shall have prizes.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Obviously [Prairie Muffin ideology] isn't designed to maximize freedom, but neither is a ban on murder.

A ban on murder certainly is designed to maximize freedom. Sure, on the one hand, it takes away the freedom to kill. On the other hand, it grants everyone the freedom not to be killed or, more specifically, the freedom not to be killed with impunity by those who might be offended by their race, religion, politics, lifestyle or behavior.

The United States has fairly recent experience with a society in which there was de facto freedom to murder. For several generations, the odds of being punished for lynching an African-American in the American South were effectively nil. Thus, in one way, white Southerners were slightly more free than they are now: they could exact a private death penalty for any perceived offense by their black compatriots. However, they used this freedom to terrorize, and restrict the freedom of, millions of African-Americans. The culture of violence also had an inevitable blowback effect on even white freedom, as several civil rights workers found out in the 1960s. Once the ban on murder began to be enforced, the net level of freedom increased dramatically.

The Prairie Muffin platform, in contrast, would take away freedom without any offsetting gain. It isn't like a ban on murder at all.

[Erick Oppeen]

If you read Russian history, you may note that periods when Russia did not have "firm rule" were Not Good (albeit interesting, in the sense of the Chinese curse). One such period, between the death of Ivan the Terrible and the accession to the throne of the first Romanov tsar, was called the "Time of Troubles."

This might have something to do with the Cossack spokesman's viewpoint. Different countries have different views of history---I somehow "hae me doots" that any European would call World War II "The Good War" like that nimnull Studs Terkel did. Arabs call the first Arab-Israeli war "an-Nakba" (The Catastrophe) which is not how it is seen by most Americans.

[hapax]

Jesu: "All have won, and all shall have prizes."

It's a Caucus-Race!

No, it's the Iowa Straw Poll!

[cjmr]

Didn't Axiomatic already win?

I must have missed that. I grew up a few miles down the road from Duns Scotus College in Southfield, MI so I found that personally funny. Sadly, the College has closed at some point since I left the area...

[histrogeek]

One of the bigger problems with the anarchy/authoritarian dicotomy is that people are often talking about entirely different things. Syndalicalists and even libertarians refer to anarchy as a state of extremely localized government based on some type of cooperative, usually non-coercive, system. Nearly everyone else thinks of anarchy as chaos without any system of order. Either might lead to rule of tyrants, but the former COULD also be a free system. I'm not sure it could work, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
The problem in a debate is that some people, we all know who I'm talking about, are being obtuse about the two different definitions.

[damnedyankee]

All have won, and all shall have prizes.

(opens his prize envelope) A free small soda from Hardees! Score!