The latest article made me laugh and laugh!

[jebreject]

Meaning no disrespect to any Libs on board here, of course, except to say that I think the Libertarian Party is bonkers

They really really are.  For a brief time in high school, I thought that the LP made sense, and then I started thinking about it:  wait a minute, how am I going to pay for college without federal aid?  As much of an anarchist as I may be, government/social programs aren't bad.  I mean, as long as there is a big scary government they should at least be doing things to help people out, right?

And plus the whole laissez faire/free market capitalism/let-the-corporations-do-as-they-please thing really really bugs me.

[woejilli]

reguardless of their political leanings, penn and teller, at least in season one of bullshit don't seem to wear politics on their sleeves. i have enjoyed that show and have been excited at how informative it can be, reguardless of where it lands on the political spectrum.

[jebreject]

I enjoyed the episodes I saw as well, even if they were making fun of things that I like.

[Andrew_TSKS]

jeb, the libertarians scare you and yet you're an anarchist? do you see how anarchy is just like libertarianism carried to an extreme?

[John]

jeb, the libertarians scare you and yet you're an anarchist? do you see how anarchy is just like libertarianism carried to an extreme?

No, it isn't.

[Andrew_TSKS]

gah, ok, whatever.

[Keith from TTIKTDA]

Well, yes - let those who want a programmatic non-faith-related route to sobriety come up with something! Until they do, though, AA will have to do, and I don't have any difficulty with compulsory meeting attendance for people who, say, have been convicted of driving drunk. My right to not get killed by their driving outweighs their right to not sit in room where people are referencing "a higher power." If they're so fragile that the phrase "a higher power" gives them conniptions, that's more their problem than a constitutional issue.

I fail to understand how AA would not be effective without the "higher Power" stuff.

I fail to understand why somebody can't just cop the 12 step model, secularize it, and have the same results.

And I fail to understand why the government has no encouraged somebody, anybody, to do just that.

Also, for what it's worth, I would say that AA is what drove my Aunt off the wagon.

P.S. Libertarians are Anarchists that either are, or dream of being rich someday

[Lalitree]

Yeah, that would certainly be the answer to the church/state conflict (to secularize it), but it would be a long battle to gain respect/reputation/etc. and to spread to every town in the country, and who's going to do it? The government would probably screw it up or spend WAY too much money doing it. So, we have this thing that may be a bit of an infringement on the church/state thing, kinda like how in my public high school we had big Christmas concerts and stuff.

[John]

I fail to understand how AA would not be effective without the "higher Power" stuff.

Because the key issue in addiction is low self-esteem expressed as rampant egotism. The addict/alcoholic needs to understand that while he is the center of his own universe, the universe itself does not actually revolve around him: this is not a put-down, it's actually good news to the addict, who is often a person who's been asked to hold down the homefront in a failing family, or be a better student than his famously-a-great-student Dad, etc. A friend, once a junkie and now some eighteen years clean, had been a dedicated atheist; his first higher power was some material object, a light bulb or something that he couldn't reach. The higher power in AA isn't part of it; it's the linchpin of the whole disease concept. AA isn't a self-discipline course. It's about changing a person's outlook from one of self-service to one of community/public service.

The issue is one of control, and of acknowledging that you personally don't run shit all the time. It's proven most useful for addicts and alcoholics to think of this in terms of "powers greater than themselves." I can't understand where it is that people who just like to think & talk about this stuff (say, Penn & Teller) get off telling people who actually need & who can really use this stuff how they oughta take it. Again: anybody who's got a better model should build it! AA & NA didn't get big because the government aided them. They reject all offers of aid. They got big because they were the ONLY place that alcoholics & addicts had EVER gone and gotten anything like recovery beyond a white-knuckles treatment. So when some alternate model that is worth a damn actually presents itself, it shouldn't have any trouble producing enough success stories that courts will offer it instead of AA.

'Til then, let people who'd endanger the public health by driving drunk enjoy a little God-talk instead of jail time. It won't hurt 'em, might help 'em, and certainly doesn't violate the spirit (or the letter) of the Constitution.

[sedita]

trick is, the fed. gov. is NEVER going to start up a better program.
it'll cost zillions.

those fuckers can't seem to fund education properly,
addicts just won't ever be a priority.

j.

[John]

It's true - but AA wasn't started by Feds, or by anybody with money - it grew on the strength of people (I'm gonna sound like an evangelist here, but no, I'm not a member: just a former health care professional who's worked with addicts, and who has plenty of first-hand exposure) sharing their strength & recovery. By "let them start one that works better," I mean the skeptics! There is a no-higher-power thing called "Rational Recovery," and as soon as it's shown itself effective (not in "studies," heaven forbid, 'cause data can be manipulated however you like, but by hanging around long enough without outside support), I'm sure plenty of judges will say "AA or RR, take your pick, just get sober."

I'm not holding my breath, though, 'cause I think that the anti-AA skepticism has less to do with its track record than with a sort of reflex against God-talk: which I TOTALLY understand. I just think it's misplaced in the case of people needing help with addiction. There are better places to spend one's rage at a church-state. Protesting the war, say.

[SPACERACE]

jeb, the libertarians scare you and yet you're an anarchist? do you see how anarchy is just like libertarianism carried to an extreme?

No, it isn't.

I don't think it's fair to just say that, since it depends on how you look at it. Seeing as a libertarian is someone who believes in the rule of individual rights and minimizing the role of the state (at least that's the classical definition), it's not such a far throw from anarchy, which is the straight-up abolishment of all government and authority, and complete self-rule.

On one hand, there is the intrinsic difference between anarchy and almost everything else, which is that it implies that we can govern ourselves with basically no help from authority (which sounds pretty goddamn silly to me, no offense to anyone here), and most anarchists I've talked to are pretty staunch on that. Meanwhile the "almost everything else" requires some form of authority, no matter how small.

But, on the other hand, a small government with little power isn't so far from none at all. Minimizing the role of authority (assuming that "minimizing" means getting the hell out of the way of the people, and letting them govern themselves, to a degree) is basically saying that people can do fine when given the freedom, and that the intervention of some larger organization is, while not totally unneccesary, only to be used when absolutely needed.

[Maaik]

jeb, the libertarians scare you and yet you're an anarchist? do you see how anarchy is just like libertarianism carried to an extreme?

No, it isn't.

I don't think it's fair to just say that, since it depends on how you look at it. Seeing as a libertarian is someone who believes in the rule of individual rights and minimizing the role of the state (at least that's the classical definition), it's not such a far throw from anarchy, which is the straight-up abolishment of all government and authority, and complete self-rule.

On one hand, there is the intrinsic difference between anarchy and almost everything else, which is that it implies that we can govern ourselves with basically no help from authority (which sounds pretty goddamn silly to me, no offense to anyone here), and most anarchists I've talked to are pretty staunch on that. Meanwhile the "almost everything else" requires some form of authority, no matter how small.

But, on the other hand, a small government with little power isn't so far from none at all. Minimizing the role of authority (assuming that "minimizing" means getting the hell out of the way of the people, and letting them govern themselves, to a degree) is basically saying that people can do fine when given the freedom, and that the intervention of some larger organization is, while not totally unneccesary, only to be used when absolutely needed.

I've found that two opposite extremes, if taken to their logical conclusions, will meet in the middle or at least overlap considerably.

[jaimoe0]

Because the key issue in addiction is low self-esteem expressed as rampant egotism.

John, I'm not a health care professional, so I'm really ignorant here and I'm just wondering if the physical/chemical components of addiction, say like an addiction to heroin, are fundamentally different than the model described in your above quote.  I guess what I'm asking is, is the low self-esteem expressed as egotism the reason a smack addict starts using in the first place, and then you also have to deal with the physiological aspect of the addiction, or is the physical/chemcial part of it secondary to the self-esteem/egotism aspect?  I don't mean to put you on the spot if this isn't an issue you've dealt with, but I'm curious what your experiences have taught you about this. Thanks.

[John]

Because the key issue in addiction is low self-esteem expressed as rampant egotism.

John, I'm not a health care professional, so I'm really ignorant here and I'm just wondering if the physical/chemical components of addiction, say like an addiction to heroin, are fundamentally different than the model described in your above quote.  I guess what I'm asking is, is the low self-esteem expressed as egotism the reason a smack addict starts using in the first place, and then you also have to deal with the physiological aspect of the addiction, or is the physical/chemcial part of it secondary to the self-esteem/egotism aspect?  I don't mean to put you on the spot if this isn't an issue you've dealt with, but I'm curious what your experiences have taught you about this. Thanks.

Well - that's AA's position, or part of it, anyhow: that (physical/genetic models aside, which I'm not sure I buy) personality/behavior patterns are the true hallmarks of an addict, and drinking/using is just an acting out of these patterns. That's why AA doesn't believe that just-not-drinking is enough, and this is where debunkers start to get mad: they tend to be the sorts who think that "addictive personality," say, is an excuse, not a description of a problem. Or that if it describes a problem, it's one that can be conquered with willpower. I find this position 1) icky right-leaning, like asking why a person on welfare doesn't just get a job and 2) rooted in theory rather than reality. Most addicts and alcoholics, once they been clean a while, will tell you that they drank/used to get the fuck away from who they were. AA/NA is about becoming comfortable with that person.

Theoretically, therapy should be able to address this, but there seems to be something effective in groups of people who've gone through the same wringer: and why wouldn't there be? Throughout history, groups of men and women with common life experience have changed each other's lives & sometimes the world.

[Keith from TTIKTDA]

And I'd just like to express again, that despite my quibbles w/ one aspect of AA, I haven't contested any of what John is saying here, and that I do understand that the 12 step model is infact very effective for a great number of people because clearly it isn't just a personality disorder that willpower can conquer for most.

[SPACERACE]

jeb, the libertarians scare you and yet you're an anarchist? do you see how anarchy is just like libertarianism carried to an extreme?

No, it isn't.

I don't think it's fair to just say that, since it depends on how you look at it. Seeing as a libertarian is someone who believes in the rule of individual rights and minimizing the role of the state (at least that's the classical definition), it's not such a far throw from anarchy, which is the straight-up abolishment of all government and authority, and complete self-rule.

On one hand, there is the intrinsic difference between anarchy and almost everything else, which is that it implies that we can govern ourselves with basically no help from authority (which sounds pretty goddamn silly to me, no offense to anyone here), and most anarchists I've talked to are pretty staunch on that. Meanwhile the "almost everything else" requires some form of authority, no matter how small.

But, on the other hand, a small government with little power isn't so far from none at all. Minimizing the role of authority (assuming that "minimizing" means getting the hell out of the way of the people, and letting them govern themselves, to a degree) is basically saying that people can do fine when given the freedom, and that the intervention of some larger organization is, while not totally unneccesary, only to be used when absolutely needed.

I've found that two opposite extremes, if taken to their logical conclusions, will meet in the middle or at least overlap considerably.

But the thing is, libertarianism and  anarchism aren't opposite extremes at all; anarchism is the abolishment of authority and government; libertarianism is the minimization of it.

[Keith from TTIKTDA]

Anarchism is the abolition of government and the replacement therof with autonomous, communistic collectives.

Libertarianism is the reduction of government to little more than a civil court system and printer of money, rooted in capitalistic tradtition.

This is why they are opposites.

[Andrew_TSKS]

ah yes, but have you ever heard of anarcho-capitalism? http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

the lines really do start to blur after a while.

also,thanks other people for elaborating on/explaining what i was talking about when i didn't bother to.

[commandercranky]

One crucial distinction between anarchism and libertarianism is anarchism's heavy emphasis on mutual aid.  Yes, it's true, anarchists call for an abolition of hierarchy, but not necessarily government or authority.  Shared cooperative government would be seen as having legitimate authority to an anarchist because that authority is shared as a community rather than something held over the many by those in power.

Mutual aid is the critical element that separates anarchism from libertarianism in that the libertarian often has such a strong individualist streak that they are unconcerned with the difficulties of others.  Even if they do express concern, it's from the perspective of voluntary charity.  Though anarchism certainly prizes individual freedom and autonomy, it also emphasizes a proactive duty and ethic of mutual aid to work together in nonhierarchical cooperative models to take care of each other.

[jebreject]

ah yes, but have you ever heard of anarcho-capitalism? http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

the lines really do start to blur after a while.

Yeah, but most of us pinko communist anarchists would say that anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism, because hierarchy and authority still exist as long as capitalism still exists.

But the reason I hadn't replied before this and why I was hesitant to reply now is because I really, really, really, really do not want to turn this thread into a conversation about anarchism.  And I especially don't want to get into a conversation where it's me vs. everyone else.  As fun as that sounds, I've been there before and it's very frustrating and draining and usually not really worth it, so I'd kinda prefer it if anarchism be left as a topic to be discussed elsewhere, as in off this board.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, and i know that's a lot of the thought process behind modern anarchism, but to me that's basically a pipe dream, as i know way too many people to ever believe that that would actually happen on its own. and even if it did, i question whether the term "anarchy"--literally "abcense of government"--is even accurate anymore.

[jebreject]

Sigh.

The reason we use the term "anarchist" is because it's the term that's been used since the very beginning of the movement.  Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.  Some anarchists consider themselves "libertarian socialist," and then there's "anarchist communism," "anarcho-syndicalism," and all that, which are perhaps more descriptive and relevent than "anarchism," but what difference does it make, really?

[John]

Just to be a pedant about it, "anarchy" would actually literally mean "absence of origin" ("arche" = beginning, origin; "an" = negating particle) therefore not necessarily lacking all forms of governance: just no seat of power, no authority without consent. The key distinction is that liberatarianism is all about THE INDIVIDUAL!!! and anarchy, while attractive to many individualists, is really about protecting the herd.

Anything of any value anywhere began as a pipe dream, in my admittedly idealistic opinion.

[John]

this thread kicks ass, by the way