Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: WROL Without Rule of Law: Don't hasten the day.

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I know this is something that has been on a few minds around here. Things are changing but I think Nutnfancy has some pertinent thoughts and the whole video is worth a watch. I promise you he shoots some guns in it, check out his out videos too.
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/xPVSE5jg_LY&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    did he just say that you don't have to worry about crime in that park LMAO

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    His lips look funny, I couldn't keep watching.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    akmisrmaadi wrote:
    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    did he just say that you don't have to worry about crime in that park LMAO
    I believe he said 'generally'. Which for most of America is pretty true.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Three minutes in, and I can't continue.

    His premise, at least from what I can gather from the last minute or so, seems to be that we're free and safe to enjoy a sunny day in the park because of laws, and police who enforce them.

    Excuse me while I vomit just a little bit.

    Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers". A society of people who interact voluntarily is both safe and polite. There might not be laws, but there are still rules to follow, and violating them can lead to far harsher and more immediate penalties than the police and laws could ever impose.

    Come to Porc Fest in June, and you'll meet plenty of smiling families playing in a beautiful sunny (privately owned) park. Most of them don't care one whit about laws, but they are very concerned with rules, such as NAP: "Don't initiate force, ever, or suffer the consequences, immediately."


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Personally, I enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I can see what he's saying up to a point, but I have to say something.

    He is confusing "order" with "rule of law". We have lots of order in the US. We dutifully pay our taxes. We line up at the airport to get our personal effects inspected. We do not start a revolt when our neighbor's house gets raided by a SWAT team and they kill his dogs for sport. We follow the judge's instructions and send people to jail as obedient jurors. We cheer when our president or our bureaucrats exercise unconstitutional powers and fire the CEO of a private corporation, railroad Martha Steward into prison,or send in troops to collect guns after a hurricane. We are obedient; we have an orderly society.

    But an orderly society is not the same as rule of law. The distinction is important.

    That park in the beginning is in San Fransisco. You cannot bear arms there. Rule of law?



  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Three minutes in, and I can't continue.

    His premise, at least from what I can gather from the last minute or so, seems to be that we're free and safe to enjoy a sunny day in the park because of laws, and police who enforce them.

    Excuse me while I vomit just a little bit.

    Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers". A society of people who interact voluntarily is both safe and polite. There might not be laws, but there are still rules to follow, and violating them can lead to far harsher and more immediate penalties than the police and laws could ever impose.

    Come to Porc Fest in June, and you'll meet plenty of smiling families playing in a beautiful sunny (privately owned) park. Most of them don't care one whit about laws, but they are very concerned with rules, such as NAP: "Don't initiate force, ever, or suffer the consequences, immediately."
    I thought that too at first but his definition of anarchy is not the political one you are using rather that of a state of lawlessness and disorder that causes suffering. Which if the system collapses is very possible. Think LA 1992, Katrina, Somalia. Should that happen, most people will not be able to deal with it nor will they be good to each other as you or I can.
    I believe as you do that much less government is a good thing. I do think his point is that we have built up a stable system ,not without faults that need changing as he says deeper in the video.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This reminds me of the Connections episode about a societal breakdown, longwatch.

    Which, BTW, I was also steared towrds by you. I'm noticing a pattern!

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    I can see what he's saying up to a point, but I have to say something.

    He is confusing "order" with "rule of law". We have lots of order in the US. We dutifully pay our taxes. We line up at the airport to get our personal effects inspected. We do not start a revolt when our neighbor's house gets raided by a SWAT team and they kill his dogs for sport. We follow the judge's instructions and send people to jail as obedient jurors. We cheer when our president or our bureaucrats exercise unconstitutional powers and fire the CEO of a private corporation, railroad Martha Steward into prison,*or send in troops to collect guns after a hurricane. We are obedient; we have an orderly society.

    But an orderly society is not the same as rule of law. The distinction is important.

    That park in the beginning is in San Fransisco. You cannot bear arms there. Rule of law?

    I agree with your critique of the system, but he doesn't say it is without flaws. He encourages us to work within the system for change and that the orderly society we have is better than it will be in a WROL situation.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    This reminds me of the Connections episode about a societal breakdown, longwatch.

    Which, BTW, I was also steared towrds by you. I'm noticing a pattern!
    Well I noticed how fragile our system is and increasingly so early in my life. The increasing breakdowns (social, infrastructure, economic, political, etc.) make me more motivated to prepare for a drastic and unwelcome change in lifestyle. Hopefully I am just a pessimist, but lately I fear I have been too optimistic.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    It's only fragile if you think the opposite of fragile is "government control".

    People do not need excessive government force to act civil towards each other. Manners and morality predate government and remain above and beyond government.

    That said, our society has grown extremely obedient and dependent on government for so many things, that when times get tough order often breaks down, and those who are not ready to defend themselves and maintain order in their own neighborhoods fall victim to crime.

    Those who think we can keep going into the future with the current system are the same people who depend on that system and keep feeding it until it chokes the freedom out of us and eventually collapses catastrophically.

    Better to let it fall apart and decentralize power so that when disaster strikes the problems can remain local and the help as well. The sooner the better. More on this later...

    ETA: Ths guy does have wierd lips and comes off as condescending to me as well.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Three minutes in, and I can't continue.

    His premise, at least from what I can gather from the last minute or so, seems to be that we're free and safe to enjoy a sunny day in the park because of laws, and police who enforce them.

    Excuse me while I vomit just a little bit.

    Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers". A society of people who interact voluntarily is both safe and polite. There might not be laws, but there are still rules to follow, and violating them can lead to far harsher and more immediate penalties than the police and laws could ever impose.

    Come to Porc Fest in June, and you'll meet plenty of smiling families playing in a beautiful sunny (privately owned) park. Most of them don't care one whit about laws, but they are very concerned with rules, such as NAP: "Don't initiate force, ever, or suffer the consequences, immediately."
    +1000

    Particularly this: "Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers"."
    Well said.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's only fragile if you think the opposite of fragile is "government control".

    People do not need excessive government force to act civil towards each other. Manners and morality predate government and remain above and beyond government.

    That said, our society has grown extremely obedient and dependent on government for so many things, that when times get tough order often breaks down, and those who are not ready to defend themselves and maintain order in their own neighborhoods fall victim to crime.

    Those who think we can keep going into the future with the current system are the same people who depend on that system and keep feeding it until it chokes the freedom out of us and eventually collapses catastrophically.

    Better to let it fall apart and decentralize power so that when disaster strikes the problems can remain local and the help as well. The sooner the better. More on this later...

    ETA: Ths guy does have wierd lips and comes off as condescending to me as well.
    Actually I think it is fragile because the infrastructure supporting us all is easily damaged, government simply won't function without it's support system. Just as too many people can't function without it either. Anyhow the point he's making is that it isn't necessary to fight the man because as he said "the apple will fall from the tree on its own". He also means its not the absence of government that we need to worry about, its what happens when there is no gasoline, no power, no food. A lot of people won't obey much after 3 days without food including government orders.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    I thought that too at first but his definition of anarchy is not the political one you are using rather that of a state of lawlessness and disorder that causes suffering. Which if the system collapses is very possible. Think LA 1992, Katrina, Somalia.
    Those are three interesting examples. In both South Central and NOLA, we had highly governed, welfare-dependent, regulated populations and a strong "us-versus-them" relationship with police and government. (That attitude went both ways.)

    The sudden devolution of order in those places didn't come from the collapse of law or government. Law and government were still in place, and responded to disorder with even stronger force, attempting to create order, seeking to establish order even through extra-legal means. (Well, okay, in NOLA some of the government elements partook in the lawlessness and disorder themselves. )

    In Somalia, the violence doesn't come from the absence of government, but rather from attempts to establish it. Whether they're tribal warlords or UN "peacekeepers", it is the archists who use violence to force others to do things their way. The ordinary people are too busy engaging in free trade and unregulated commerce, doing things like creating the world's best wireless communication network.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    longwatch wrote:
    I thought that too at first but his definition of anarchy is not the political one you are using rather that of a state of lawlessness and disorder that causes suffering. Which if the system collapses is very possible. Think LA 1992, Katrina, Somalia.
    Those are three interesting examples. In both South Central and NOLA, we had highly governed, welfare-dependent, regulated populations and a strong "us-versus-them" relationship with police and government. (That attitude went both ways.)

    The sudden devolution of order in those places didn't come from the collapse of law or government. Law and government were still in place, and responded to disorder with even stronger force, attempting to create order, seeking to establish order even through extra-legal means. (Well, okay, in NOLA some of the government elements partook in the lawlessness and disorder themselves. )

    In Somalia, the violence doesn't come from the absence of government, but rather from attempts to establish it. Whether they're tribal warlords or UN "peacekeepers", it is the archists who use violence to force others to do things their way. The ordinary people are too busy engaging in free trade and unregulated commerce, doing things like creating the world's best wireless communication network.
    Exactly what I was thinking!

    LA'92 wassparked off when government forces beat an unarmed man nearly to deathand video leaked out. Subsequently, government failed to punish these men, implicitly endorsinggovernment-backed violence. And, this next point is key, prior to this government had, for various reasons, built a relationship of mistrust and malice with the residents of the rioting neighborhoods, the background of which stretches back to the days of Jim Crow and spread throughout society. Government responded by mobilizing Marines to "restore order". You will note that neighborhoods which did rely on outside help and which had many people armed and prepared (namely the Korean shop owners) were the neighborhoods which suffered less damage.

    It was, in fact, that image of a Korean businessman standing atop his shop's roof with a Kalashnikov that turned me forever away from gun control. (I wish I could find that picture, I distinctly remember seeing it on CNN at the time). That man was maintaining rule of law better than any costumed tax-feeders were able to do that day, and that should be the template for the American Citizen.

    Katrina, also, a disaster caused and made worse after the fact by government. Government built the levies, told everyone they were safe, and allowed so many people to be dependent onpublic welfare. Then after the disaster, government attempted to restore order by abrogating rule of law, and confiscating firearms unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Fix it by force, that's the only way government knows how to do things, and rule of law be damned in favor of order and control.

    Somalia? I read an interesting article about Somalia a few years ago in liberty magazine by a person who had visited it and took notes. Somalia is the closest thing to "anarchy" as you may find; they have no central rulers, but they do have rule of law. If you steal and get caught, you will face accusations in a tribal/clan/family court, and if found guilty, you will be made to pay restitution. Nobody is taxed at gunpoint to pay for you to go to prison. Likewise for other crimes. There is rule of law there, but it's highly decentralized and not at all what we western statists are used to.

    Problems start when the UN, usually backed by the US and other powers, tries to impose some sort of government there, by backing one warlord over others. About the best argument for Somolis to get their own government would be to protect them from us and other outside forces which all want to control them. Leave them alone and watch how humans spontaneously order themselves for peaceful commerce. (Not practical; if we aren't intervening there someone else always will be).

    We Americans love to talk about how free we are, but we are scared to death of facing life without a powerful state to govern and regulate us, to protect us, to do our homework for us regarding things like food safety and controlling street crime.

    So the video is correct so far as the assertion that a breakdown in government control leads to disorder and lawlessness, because we have been conditioned to believe that lack of government means lack of self-control.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Heres a video from LA 1992. I still think WROL describes the situation shown. However if you can think of a better term for it let me know. Without Order and Law (WOOL), General Disorder and Lawlessness (GDAL) perhaps?
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/quNEzN0_toc&hl=en&fs=1[flash]


    About 1:30 into the video.
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/BKTw-UHalZc&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    About 1:30 into this one.
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/BKTw-UHalZc&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Heres a video from LA 1992. I still think WROL describes the situation shown. However if you can think of a better term for it let me know. Without Order and Law (WOOL), General Disorder and Lawlessness (GDAL) perhaps?

    How about TMJFUC (too much law and fed-up citizens)?

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    No that describes a revolution, which is a perfectly fine term and not what the LA riots were.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    kent, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    474

    Post imported post

    Well on one of Nutnfancys Vids he talks about is WROL system so dudes/Dudettes what is your system *note ONLY THOSE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE SUCH SYSTEM POST*
    No Dream Posts.
    What do you have and why?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE ******* ACRONYMS!!!

  23. #23
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    longwatch and Tomahawk;

    I wonder if both of you gentlemen realize how close you are to fundamental reasons and causes for the societal breakdown this nation has experienced over the past, nearly, 60 years? I would love to go over this with you because I have lived through it but I don't have the time while at work, nor the desire to type for the next hour+ to do this. Suffice it to say, you are both very close to the essence of the problems we see today.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •