Conciliation of UU and Nightwatchmen state

There's a character limit to topic titles

But anyway, right now on this forum we have one Universal Utilitarian, two Federal Nightwatchmen statists, and one... Martian (Republic, that is ).

At this point, we already know what the others think. I wonder if we can come to some sort of compromise?

"Just go make a UU community in one of our states" is not an acceptable compromise on this one. First of all, that's not a compromise. Second, that leaves the many unfavorable parts of The Federal Nightwatchmen state, such as that it hardly changes anything about how people organize themselves.

It is an acceptable compromise. If people don't want to change, we can't force them to. If I was trying to start a new state, I wouldn't go for Federal Nightwatchmen either. But I recognise that other people wouldn't be able to tolerate my government system, and as long as they sign up to the human rights section (i.e. the basis of a Federal Nightwatchmen state) I'm not going to bother them.

The thing about the CS- we get the chance to forge a new society.

The federal nightwatchmen state is ultimately a way to not choose.

Most differences in people can be put down to upbringing. I'ts not in their genes or anything. If we set out with the knowledge that we're making a new society, perhaps we can take advantage of that and do it right, in such a way as that we don't even need the gossamer of a nightwatchmen state, or the inevitable bricks of government that will grow, unmoveable, underneath it.

That is not a compromise at all. And I suggest you advocate what you advocate, as opposed to a system that is very bureauogenic (IE has a tendency, to make entrenched bureaucracies), and ultimately will end up being far less than what we would want for the CS.

Redsand11j wrote:

The federal nightwatchmen state is ultimately a way to not choose.

No, it's a way to let people choose the government they want.

A Federal Nightwatchmen system is not beurocratic or beurogenic. A traditional Federal system is, but if we curtail the powers of Congress, so that they can't make law, then the tendency is curtailed as well.

Look- we're the founders. our job is to argue it out until we find something guaranteed to work, and work better than what we have. As a resident of the state of New Jersey, I can tell you that I do not look extremely kindly upon local governments. In fact, it seems that they are as ineffective or worse compared to the federal government.

As I've said before: you'd have the right to set up your own UU state. We wouldn't be forcing you to be under a local government. As long as you respect human rights, we won't interfere with you.

That's not a compromise, and that's not conciliation. It seems that none will be forthcoming, either.

Following with the UU philosophy, though, I will be willing to consider one at any time.

I suppose I'll make a thread describing UU in more detail, but other than that there seems to be little point to my continued discussion of the societal aspects of a Clean Slate City. (CSC and not CSCS because a truly CS city would need no state.)

My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, and I'm in a minority, it seems, although by a measly one vote.

Well, the point of it being a Nightwatchmen state is that it's the absolute minimum state possible., so it can't get any smaller. You're advocating no state at all. There's no compromise possible between the two, since one would require the state to be smaller than the minimum.

All the Federal Nightwatchmen system consists of is a defence force ensuring that human rights are being respected, and courts to put the accused on trial, plus the appropriate punishment (which can be limited to exile, the stocks [shaming], and capital punishment... we need no prisons).

Redsand11j wrote:

That's not a compromise, and that's not conciliation. It seems that none will be forthcoming, either.

Following with the UU philosophy, though, I will be willing to consider one at any time.

I suppose I'll make a thread describing UU in more detail, but other than that there seems to be little point to my continued discussion of the societal aspects of a Clean Slate City. (CSC and not CSCS because a truly CS city would need no state.)

My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, and I'm in a minority, it seems, although by a measly one vote.

I'll be here if anyone ever decides a compromise is in order.

Well, a compromise is by definition impossible, because a Nightwatchmen state is the bare minimum possible without becoming anarachy anyway.

I really don't know why you have a problem with guaranteed rights.

The state apparatus would always follow. After all, in order to ensure that the states retain the rights, it would probably have to be at least 5% bigger than the largest. Considering the limited amount of states possible in a CS, that amounts to little to no change compared to the current morass, and with a misplaced objective as well, which will lead to an unproductive morass of wasteful spending.

Also, the different states really won't have much difference in policy. The population will be pretty much evenly mixed to start with, after all. Even if their agendas are originally different, they will homogenize until its a bureaucratic mess.

But wait, you say- This is the CSC, isn't it? Why shouldn't people just act differently?

Taken to the logical extreme, this leads to UU. Why not go for Utopia?

It's a minimal state. The only power the federal level has is to ensure peoples rights: i.e. they control the police, and that is that. It wouldn't be able to become beurocratic, since it doesn't have enough power to. The only power the police will have is to enforce peoples rights, which would be laid out plainly and are not subject to change.

Let's create a large multi-nationality military force, privately funded of course, to take over less advanced countries. Then, let's force the population to live in communes of a certain size, and only enforce the existence of the commune, not any laws. They will determine their own laws, and it will become a utopia, because as everyone knows humans want to form utopias. They are not self-serving, materialistic, barely-above-animal, beings.

Once the whole world sees the value of the utopia-commune, we will be approached by all governments to help organize their citizens into these communes. Eventually, the whole world will be one helluva happy place, no war, or famine, or murder. All thanks to the natural tendency of humans towards complete and utter non-selfish behavior and our superior moral actions to help them realize this.

NoMoreLies wrote:

It's a minimal state. The only power the federal level has is to ensure peoples rights: i.e. they control the police, and that is that. It wouldn't be able to become beurocratic, since it doesn't have enough power to. The only power the police will have is to enforce peoples rights, which would be laid out plainly and are not subject to change.

And who decides on the ambiguities of these rights? Remember, English, or any other language, will have some level of inaccuracy.

Any government far too small to make some bureaucracy (which tends to be self-perpetuating and expansive) will be far too small to enforce any rights on a strong local state bent on abusing them.

Quote :

Let's create a large multi-nationality military force, privately funded of course, to take over less advanced countries. Then, let's force the population to live in communes of a certain size, and only enforce the existence of the commune, not any laws. They will determine their own laws, and it will become a utopia, because as everyone knows humans want to form utopias. They are not self-serving, materialistic, barely-above-animal, beings.

Once the whole world sees the value of the utopia-commune, we will be approached by all governments to help organize their citizens into these communes. Eventually, the whole world will be one helluva happy place, no war, or famine, or murder. All thanks to the natural tendency of humans towards complete and utter non-selfish behavior and our superior moral actions to help them realize this.

The CSC would be entirely voluntary, as we know. In order to ensure that there would be a society as we want it created, people could be turned away, but nobody would be forced. Nobody.

People as we know them today tend to be selfish and covetous, yes. But in the end, it's all personal choice. If I choose to not act in a selfish and covetous manner, then I just stopped acting in a selfish and covetous manner. If the society is such that doing so works, and is expected, that's what people will do.

Simple, no?

Any state which becomes a totalitarian dictatorship abusing the rights of it's people... will face the full force of the other states, as well as the Feds. If the Feds become overbearing, they'll face the combined military might of the states. But such a situation is unlkely - look at Federal governments at the moment, for an example.

Your "CSC" doesn't sound very good, since all it would be is another falied Utopia, such as those tried before. They failed, what makes yours different?

All a Fderal Nightwatchmen government consists of is: defence force (i.e. Military and police, combined), courts (for putting people on trial), and the elected legislative houses (who are only there to solve issues facing the entire city, and defining the rights laid out in the Constitution, as well as serving as a united fron to the world. Any change in the law they propose, no matter how minor, has to be put to a direct vote by the entire population.

NoMoreLies wrote:

Any state which becomes a totalitarian dictatorship abusing the rights of it's people... will face the full force of the other states, as well as the Feds. If the Feds become overbearing, they'll face the combined military might of the states. But such a situation is unlkely - look at Federal governments at the moment, for an example.

Will it? Are you sure? From a study of European History (That being the only history class I feel really qualified to talk about), you will notice that nobody ever does anything unless they gain something material from it. Never. I can give you any number of examples if you wish. From the French Revolution, to the Nazi "Revolution", to the Communist Revolutions, to... well, anything. Go ahead and ask, in this one.

Quote :

Your "CSC" doesn't sound very good, since all it would be is another falied Utopia, such as those tried before. They failed, what makes yours different?

Actually, my CSC is utopia. Your doubt is whether it is reality or a fantasy. I've been over this before, and I would like to add that a UU CSC is by no means impossible. I don't think we have any disagreement that a UU CSC would be ideal, we only disagree in that I think it's possible, and you don't.

Quote :

All a Fderal Nightwatchmen government consists of is: defence force (i.e. Military and police, combined), courts (for putting people on trial), and the elected legislative houses (who are only there to solve issues facing the entire city, and defining the rights laid out in the Constitution, as well as serving as a united fron to the world. Any change in the law they propose, no matter how minor, has to be put to a direct vote by the entire population.

I think that's called direct democracy. Elected legislatures are pretty bad when it comes to keeping their powers small. States aren't going to stop that if there's something in it for the governments of said states (IE tax dollars). Ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? They could be best described as an epic fail.

Quote :

Will it? Are you sure? From a study of European History (That being the only history class I feel really qualified to talk about), you will notice that nobody ever does anything unless they gain something material from it. Never. I can give you any number of examples if you wish. From the French Revolution, to the Nazi "Revolution", to the Communist Revolutions, to... well, anything. Go ahead and ask, in this one.

You just proved why your utopia will not work.

Quote :

Any state which becomes a totalitarian dictatorship abusing the rights of it's people... will face the full force of the other states, as well as the Feds. If the Feds become overbearing, they'll face the combined military might of the states. But such a situation is unlkely - look at Federal governments at the moment, for an example.

This is very possible. However, we need to cultivate a culture that values individual liberty enough to care and doing something if those rights are infringed upon at all.

Quote :

You just proved why your utopia will not work.

Note I said Europe- this would be a new society, with people only allowed in if they could live in a UU society

Quote :

This is very possible. However, we need to cultivate a culture that values individual liberty enough to care and doing something if those rights are infringed upon at all.

Strange- take that kind of thing to its logical end and you have UU.

Why not go for it? If we don't have vision, we won't get settlers.

A high regard for liberty is a whole lot different from complete non-selfishness needed for a "UU". In fact I would go to say the two really aren't related at all. It's comparing apples and oranges, as they say.

Redsand, if you read his post properly you wouldn't have said it's logical conclusion is UU. Locksley said "However, we need to cultivate a culture that values individual liberty enough to care and doing something if those rights are infringed upon at all." 'Doing something' sounds a lot to me like it requires some kind of police force, and courts. Which are the very essence of a Nightwatchmen government.

Actually, I was looking at the part about cultivating a culture. That is the essence of UU. If you're already deciding what you want your culture to be like, I say take it to the logical, utopian end, and cultivate a culture of UU.

Redsand, do you understand yet why there is no concilliation between UU and Nightwatchmen? It's because a Nightwatchmen state is already on the very minumum of government, and if it became any more minimal it would be anarchy.

What problem do you have with defined rights, and an organization to enforce those rights?

I understand why you don't wish to try for a compromise. I've understood that one from the beginning. Let's try an "I can do it" attitude, though, and try and see what a compromise would look like.

Remember, anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

There is no compromise, because a Nightwatchmen government is the very minimum for government, and if it got any smaller it would be Anarchy.
Unless... the government merely is the defence (military and police) plus the courts and punishment (which would ideally be set up so that we don't need prisons, i.e. punishment would be shame and corporeal), with no Congress of any kind, or executive council.

Halfway to you doesn't really appear to be halfway to me.

It seems my presence here is ultimately futile. I'm semi-out voted, although perhaps blocked by a majority of one would be more correct. The technical aspects of a CSC, which are all that would remain that interests me to some extent, could be discussed elsewhere, so this is my farewell.

A forum that has had a mere 21 user signups, and a total of maybe 6 active members, having lost two, doesn't seem to have much hope for the future.

Have fun with your little agreement-fest.

So you're going because you can't persuade us to be Anarchists? A Nightwatchmen state can't get any more minimal without becoming Anarchy!

We'll welocme you back if you want to start a state in our country, as long as you abide by the constitution.

Instead of giving up so easy, why don't you spend some time polishing up your idea and laying it out in a detailed post. Give us a chance to discuss specifically your ideas, instead of vague rhetoric that we seem to be caught in.

I'm looking forward to understanding your viewpoint better.

It's not difficult to understand. I've given you it already. Its a simple idea. If you aren't willing to consider it, I'm wasting my time and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I am totally willing to consider it. I have reread the Government topic several times, and have yet to truly understand your position, other than the fact that it is very much a social revolution as much as a governmental one.

I agree with that, but please enlighten us on the intricacies of it.

It seems to be based around 'if eveyone can be raised in a culture that has such-and-such values, we won't need government, because everyone will automatically work for the greater good'.

At least, that's the impression I got.

Pretty much. And in order to create said society, we would start our CSC with UU-ists.

And not automatically, per se- more that they would do it because that's what culture and society dictates. Basically, I'm saying let's all just be nice to each other, its our choice, and if we all choose to do so we have utopia.

If you've ever seen the show Seinfeld, you'll know what I mean, when I say that societal norms impact behavior to a large extent.

But then you have to exile anyone who doesn't fit your definition of good. Meaning you need to have the power to exile them.

And once you get over a certain size of population, people can slack off and not be noticed doing so. People tend to do this without realizing. If everyone does it...

Society has a very strong hand. Beyond being education, raising a child involves helping them to fit into society.

In fact, it's not so difficult: Wouldn't you give to others, if you had every expectation of getting it back?

Oh fickle Irony, a nihilist advocating utopia.

How do we go about selecting people that are willing to do this? What is the punishment for not doing so? Who enforces it?

We start a society with people who are willing- make it extremely clear that they won't be getting a free ride. Perhaps have a selection board, or something. Character evaluations, etc. Perhaps (although this may sound cult-ish) we require all citizens to liquidate their assets and enter it into the resource pool for the CSC.

Once the society is established, no punishments are needed, and neither is enforcement.

Quote :

Once the society is established, no punishments are needed, and neither is enforcement.

What if someone is disillusioned with the whole idea? What if things don't go as planned and some hardships hit? What about children who rebel from their parents?

"They won't rebel, because they've been raised not to."

I take it they'd be exiled? Who does the exiling? What happens if someone, disillusioned with the idea, gets it into their head to murder someone? After all, it's not against the law to do so.

Different social norms, different behaviors. Nobody would be exiled, although of course you would not be forced to stay if you don't want to, it would certainly not be a policy.

What if, in a capitalistic society, someone decides they want to live like an Anarcho-Communist?

Perfectly sane, logical people have done things that they regret. Get enough people, and eventually some of these things could get pretty serious. There has to be some sort of punishment.

Are there enough people in the world willing to start a city fitting these requirements, to rival the greatest cities already in existence?

Quote :

Different social norms, different behaviors.

Not everyone follows social norms, and the fact that they change over time is a demonstration of that.

So I move to your city, and decide I don't like you, so I think you deserve to die. What does your CSC do once I've done that, since they can't exile or punish me?

You don't move to the city. Anyone so psychotic as to commit murder will not be welcome there.

I'll restate this for you to answer: Perfectly sane, logical people have done things that they regret. Get enough people, and eventually some of these things could get pretty serious. There has to be some sort of punishment.

Not necessarily. Generally, "Because I won't get caught" isn't a good reason for killing people. People kill people because they are crazy- be it momentarily, for example in crimes of passion, or permanently, as in serial killers etc. Note that these people would be present at least as much in an Archo-capitalist society (For example, the US) as in a UU CSC. I consider it to be likely that these people will be fewer in a UU society because life there would be far less stressful, since one would not need to worry about being left behind by society, or worry about people being non-trustworthy, or anything like that.

And people would not be in it for themselves. They would be in it for everyone. Conflict resolution would be the norm. Things like World War I/II, the Israel Palestine conflict, anything, would be argued out in an intelligent manner, then resolved. It's for the best interest of society, which would be the focus. Remembering, of course, that one is part of society and thus is just as important as others.

In this modern, electronic age, there is no reason why people should be out of contact from each other. Others could serve as a moderating influence, speaking directly into your mind if need be.

What happens when a Progressive hits a Libertarian hits a Communist? This.

Ignoring that that wasn't a question, of course.

I assume there would be some form of exile, for certain circumstances.

The only exile would be if a person voluntarily left. However, people who are unable to fit in with a UU society would presumably be more likely to leave.

So, you're just making the assumption that no-one will attack anyone else? That's quite a big assumption to make, and wrong as well.

I would certainly be no worse than in the societies we're currently living on.

If we were living on a desert island, with no real laws, would you attack me? If there were laws, would they really affect your decision?

One of the most important parts of a UU society is rationalism. What could make one sane person attack another but extreme, extreme anger? If people were more rational, that would be eased to a large degree.

Laws themselves aren't necessarily what stops someone from doing something. It's the consequences. If there is no organization to carry out punishments (whether that's a tribal council or law enforcement or whatever) I don't see how you could prevent or discourage these things from happening.

You do something like that, the punishment is the results. In a society in which the greatest good for all is the goal, the punishment would be the result of said action.

The result is...?

So if I live in your society, I don't have to do anything, and can just sponge off everyone else, since you can't get rid of me? Sounds like an easy life.