[BBC News] Man is charged after drugs raid

[Gladys]

I should add to that, really. The law is really only the framework for a civilised community to live within. It doesn't come from a higher being, it comes from the society it is intended to promote. It is a contract, if you like, between the individual and the greater, homogenous mass, all intended for the greater good of the homogenous mass. If a law is unworkable or unrealistic, then the homogenous mass can indicate that it is not for the greater good by generally accepting deviance as acceptable.

 

Drugs (use or peddling) are not, generally, accepted as being for the greater good.

 

Now, how we have ended up here is a bit like the old question of asking an Irishman directions; I wouldn't start from here. But we have the framework and to transgress that framework, in the hopes that you will change it, is naive. Far better to attack the very fundaments that created the law than to take it head on in specific cases.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

Property rights and laws begin with possession, which you say is different. You say its ok to possess a car. OK. Now what if you want to hang on to your car which has specific value to you, but don't mind lending it to me for the weekend while you are away. Now I have possession of the car. You want it back. You lent it to me on condition you'd get it back. So even though I have possession, you have an interest in the car - a certain right - the primary right of possession. My right of possession is secondary to yours. I might have the car in my possession, but you own it.

 

You borrow books from the library - they are in your possession - you have a hold of them. You know they belong to the library and should be returned. The library own these books.

 

Someone takes your car away from you without permission and you want it back. They have possession - they are physically in control of it. How are you going to get it back without property laws?

 

You have a small cottage and grow your own vegetables and live very modestly. Someone comes along and takes possession from you to build a big hotel block. They have the security men to stop you getting possession back. You are powerless to stop their thugs kicking you out of your home.

 

I genuinely do not think it is utopian, but in a society where there is no capitalist system, no unjustified hierarchical systems, no wage system, no money, and a gift economy, i.e. a communist (anarchist) society, why would anyone want to keep hold of my possessions when they can easily possess them as well. Your examples above are very much framed from the realities of the system we live in today where because of gross inequality people very often steal and because of profits and power do as they wish. But there is enough productive potential in the labour force to produce enough goods ensure a good standard of living and satisfy our desires for luxuries as well as needs, but it need not be in a system that recognise private property.

 

Private property is about gaining at the expense of others. Possession is not, you possess what you need (your home, your garden, your clothes) and what has specific value to you. But we live in a society when it is seemingly acceptable for someone to have TWO houses, THREE cars, to own many acres of land which is not being farmed, to own many properties and then rent them.

 

 

 

It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

"determining what are your possessions are what are not." It's easy to know who has actual possession. Bob the Burglar has the TV from your house under his arm - I have possession. What you are really saying is determining who has 'rightful possession' and what kind of possession - e.g. for the weekend, or until books due back etc. Did Bob the Burglar take your possession away from you without you wanting to part with it? Can you show it was your possession? How? If not, why make him hand the TV you say was yours back to you.

 

So it is about possession - and who has rightful possession or not. (and out of that comes the basics of property laws and ownership).

 

Now the small guy in the cottage can hopefully show it belongs to him (having lived there over 21 years peacefully, or having papers or whatever). Now the nasty developer can be ordered to give it back to him, and punished for taking it away from the little guy when he shouldn't have.

 

I think the trouble isn't with property laws or 'ownership' per se. It's that too often the poor don't have access to the law, can't afford it, don't understand their rights, have their rights eroded by governments in the pay of rich interests, and the laws get twisted to favour big business interests and so on. Mr Big can hire big gun heavyweight legal team. Mr little is lucky if he gets legal aid and a third rate hack who's not really interested and just goes through the motions.

 

Had Roly Drower been able to afford to take his case to Strasbourg, the court that issued gagging order and ordered him to reveal his sources would have been hammered - he'd have probably won compensation and so on. It would have taken years and would be very expensive. He couldn't do this. He got hammered instead.

 

That illustrates what I see is the problem - giving better access to the law for those who need it - effective legal assistance and remedies.

 

Again, I think you are looking at things from a purely capitalist perspective rather than trying to look at the bigger picture of what society would be like if it were non-capitalist. Why would Bob the burglar take my telly when he can easily get one himself. In a gift economy he would have no problem acquiring one. Bob goes to work everyday to produce goods or undertake services for the betterment of himself and others and he is allowed to help himself to the products of other people's labour as he can share in theirs. No need for wages or money.

 

Tried to find some good texts, if you are interested in understanding an anarchist perspective of property:

 

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism...m/proudhon.html

 

http://www.waste.org/~roadrunner/writing/L...rPerson_WEB.htm

 

GLADYS:

I should add to that, really. The law is really only the framework for a civilised community to live within. It doesn't come from a higher being, it comes from the society it is intended to promote. It is a contract, if you like, between the individual and the greater, homogenous mass, all intended for the greater good of the homogenous mass. If a law is unworkable or unrealistic, then the homogenous mass can indicate that it is not for the greater good by generally accepting deviance as acceptable.

 

Drugs (use or peddling) are not, generally, accepted as being for the greater good.

 

Now, how we have ended up here is a bit like the old question of asking an Irishman directions; I wouldn't start from here. But we have the framework and to transgress that framework, in the hopes that you will change it, is naive. Far better to attack the very fundaments that created the law than to take it head on in specific cases.

 

But do you really believe that positive law PROMOTES society? I think some form of law or code of morals/living is essential but am very critical of the current system and its problems. You say it is a contract between the individual and the greater homogenous mass but I disagree. I have never been given this contract to sign, I have only been told that I MUST obey or face punishments. As soon as I was born I became subjects to a multitude of laws that I could not possibly have even commented on and will live my life almost certainly with no power to make a change to them. If a law is unworkable, then yes it often disappears because its redundancy is obvious and existence possibly makes a mockery of the system.

 

Now you mention deviance. The problem with deviance is that it will be punished. You break the law in our system, you get caught, and you get punished whether the law is stupid, oppressive, discriminatory, benefits only the rich, and even if most people hate it. The tool of government, the Police will enforce the law. There is a likelihood however that if most people or everyone broke a specific law it would appear redundant and would disappear. In the case of drugs this is not going to happen. It will not happen but a lot of people will not want to partake in drugs, but many will. The fact that many won't means that a unified voice cannot be served to render to law redundant, rather the state will continue to allow the police to enforce the law.

 

Drug abuse is a bad thing, and it I have an ambivalent attitude to the use of drugs in the specific respect of seeing how altering ones senses is enlightening and good fun, but then think why it is actually required - is my life in sobriety boring or sad? Though if we talk about the greater good, drug taking isn't so bad, whereas abuse is. Though what needs to be overcame is the ignorance that surrounds drugs, the generalisations that all drugs are the same and the illegal ones are terrible. And people also need to recognise that the state should not have the power to determine whether someone can or cannot do drugs. Why should it have this power? It is NOT society itself, and nor would I even allow others to make decisions for me.

 

Though I don't know if it what you mean, but I agree about attacking the fundaments. The state and businesses have far too much control over the lives of people. It is better to attack the system we live in and expose it for what it is.

[WTF]

I genuinely do not think it is utopian, but in a society where there is no capitalist system, no unjustified hierarchical systems, no wage system, no money, and a gift economy, i.e. a communist (anarchist) society, why would anyone want to keep hold of my possessions when they can easily possess them as well.

 

 

 

 

Again, I think you are looking at things from a purely capitalist perspective rather than trying to look at the bigger picture of what society would be like if it were non-capitalist. Why would Bob the burglar take my telly when he can easily get one himself. In a gift economy he would have no problem acquiring one. Bob goes to work everyday to produce goods or undertake services for the betterment of himself and others and he is allowed to help himself to the products of other people's labour as he can share in theirs. No need for wages or money.

 

even a comunist society has leaders , who in case you haven't noticed live off the back off the workers in comparative luxery.

 

 

and if telly's are a valueless item? who is going to bother spending their time and resources making them for you?? it as all well and good wanting a currencyless propertyless society, but almost by definition a society has to have a hierachial structure at some level. every ship has a captain. and the captains have better quarters and conditions than the crew. they are like the queen bee or ant of their colony.

 

as i have said elsewhere in these forums, i don't have a problem exactly with drugs, it is the druggies that expect the rest of us to sponsor their lives while they DON'T contribute and in some cases turn to other crimes to fund their habbit. if you can pay your way and get wasted fine, but it isn't right to expect the rest of the planet to keep you high. perhaps the rest of the planet would like to chip in and provide me with aeroplane to play in as i will have a licence soon?? not every body can be king.

[manxy]

But do you really believe that positive law PROMOTES society? I think some form of law or code of morals/living is essential but am very critical of the current system and its problems. You say it is a contract between the individual and the greater homogenous mass but I disagree. I have never been given this contract to sign, I have only been told that I MUST obey or face punishments. As soon as I was born I became subjects to a multitude of laws that I could not possibly have even commented on and will live my life almost certainly with no power to make a change to them. If a law is unworkable, then yes it often disappears because its redundancy is obvious and existence possibly makes a mockery of the system.

The law has been made for this island and if anyone does not want to abide by the laws set out, then they have a choice of either taking their case up with Parliament, or move to a place where these laws don't exist.

[The Old Git]

No, I don't think it is bollocks at all. You genuinely think that the man or woman who has maybe put in some more hours a day at work, who may have talent, or entrepreneurial skill deserves the fortunes which they reap? I definitely do not. Ok, that person works long hours, maybe he works 14 hours a day. I don't believe he has any 'entitlement' to a fortune. From a conventional perspective I very much doubt his efforts in work are proportionate to his pay (and you say he is rich) when compared a person working 9-5 on a £6 an hour wage in a supermarket.

 

Of course I think people with talent and skills who put in the effort and hours are worth what they are paid. So do the people who chose to pay for his skills and services.

 

If everyone was only worth £6 per hour then where's the incentive to study hard, pass exams, struggle to set up a business and then nurture and grow that business?

 

You seem to want some sort of fantasy communism where nobody has to really do any work and if they do they they're getting taken advantage of by mean bosses and business owners.

 

I can only imagine that you're not very happy with your lot in life and have some petty, boring job with few prospects.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

even a comunist society has leaders , who in case you haven't noticed live off the back off the workers in comparative luxery.

 

and if telly's are a valueless item? who is going to bother spending their time and resources making them for you?? it as all well and good wanting a currencyless propertyless society, but almost by definition a society has to have a hierachial structure at some level. every ship has a captain. and the captains have better quarters and conditions than the crew. they are like the queen bee or ant of their colony.

 

Hierarchies would not be need in an anarchic communist society. And I have never noticed any communism in the world today. Why do you believe hierarchies are necessary?

 

In an anarchist society the incentives to work are not based on earnings, that is the difference. The incentive is based upon people's desires to help and support each and produce for the greater good. As we are animals that seek to cooperate not compete.

 

The law has been made for this island and if anyone does not want to abide by the laws set out, then they have a choice of either taking their case up with Parliament, or move to a place where these laws don't exist.

 

That's a very obedient attitude and one that your government (the people who rule) is glad that you have it. It makes the system that is beneficial to them justifiable. The more people who are unquestioning about how the system works and legitimacy of the many forces in society the more the elite can sit content.

 

But people do not have a choice. How is parliament an effective place to air your dissatisfaction? If parliament still disagreed with your position, what do you do then? And where exactly could you escape to?

 

Of course I think people with talent and skills who put in the effort and hours are worth what they are paid. So do the people who chose to pay for his skills and services.

 

If everyone was only worth £6 per hour then where's the incentive to study hard, pass exams, struggle to set up a business and then nurture and grow that business?

 

You seem to want some sort of fantasy communism where nobody has to really do any work and if they do they they're getting taken advantage of by mean bosses and business owners.

 

I can only imagine that you're not very happy with your lot in life and have some petty, boring job with few prospects.

 

In a sense you are quite right because we now live ina society where greed has overriden many of our better qualities. The incentive to study and do well in exams is based upon the desire to earn as much as possible under the ridiculous idea that a person's success in life is a reflection of their job and their earnings.

 

But those on very high salaries are not putting in a proportionate number of hours and level of effort proportionate to their pay when compared with those on lower salaries. Salaries are arbitrary.

 

There is nothing fanatastic about it, just very different from the current system. And it is not one where people do not work but where there are incentives to work that are not based on simply the desperate need to survive and drive to earn more and more money.

 

So far I am quite happy with my lot in my life in certain respects. My job is no different from most office jobs I imagine. I do have good prospects but have become acutely aware of the problems in the capitalist system and in society through a realisation that conventional beliefs such as the requirement for reform, voting, and hoping for the best do not work. But I know my place in society and am not happy about that and am also aware of most peoples place and am not happy about that either.

[WTF]

In an anarchist society the incentives to work are not based on earnings, that is the difference. The incentive is based upon people's desires to help and support each and produce for the greater good. As we are animals that seek to cooperate not compete.

 

hence the achilles heel of your views. not every one wants to contribute, those that do are the ones who are working now and not taking the piss out of the wank benefits system. what happens to those folks in your world that just won't do anything but take?? if everyone had that attitude we'd all starve to death or be killing each other for what food there was. i'm going back to my silly fkr conclusion.

[arronc]

In an anarchist society the incentives to work are not based on earnings, that is the difference. The incentive is based upon people's desires to help and support each and produce for the greater good. As we are animals that seek to cooperate not compete.

 

Anarchy is great when you are talking about subsistence farming, where your resources are above the marginal level. That is the only circumstance it can be considered to work.

 

The reason is that this simplistic society model sounds great at the point you make the transition from capitalism to anarchism, but the fact remains that without money and competition, you never move beyond subsistence farming.

 

Anarchy can never produce microprocessor fabrication, for example. This is why in post-nuclear movies, everyone has to go back and live in caves. Or go cannibal.

 

Someone robbing a telly is a great point. Complex systems like broadcasting, engineering, product design, electricity grids, satalites etc would never be constructed by a society like the one you describe. It is possible that an anarchic society could at any point inherit the existing capitalist framework, and then run it into the ground, which might be fun for a few years. But you always end up living in cave fending off cannibals in the end.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In an anarchist society the incentives to work are not based on earnings, that is the difference. The incentive is based upon people's desires to help and support each and produce for the greater good. As we are animals that seek to cooperate not compete.

 

hence the achilles heel of your views. not every one wants to contribute, those that do are the ones who are working now and not taking the piss out of the wank benefits system. what happens to those folks in your world that just won't do anything but take?? if everyone had that attitude we'd all starve to death or be killing each other for what food there was. i'm going back to my silly fkr conclusion.

 

I wouldn't feel that satisfied. In the current system we live in, a capitalist system, you have a need to compete against others which runs completely against our basic drives to cooperate and help out others.

 

It is the capitalist system that creates the situation where you have people who do not wish to work. And I cannot blame them either. Why should they?

 

Mot work carried out is not a socal or public good, but involves workers producing goods or services that are sold as a private good by the workers' employers. So in working the average working is not contributing to produce a good that is available for all but is alienated from their work by allowing the fruits of their labour to be owned by their employer who does as he/she wished.

 

Moreover, those who choose not to work are generally those with the worst prospects. They have the most limited range of jobs which they can choose from and they will be low paid ones. Moreover, the jobs available are most likely to be most monotonous, boring, and soul-sucking jobs that anyone could do.

 

But these people are not stupid enough to not make a wise decision. They weigh up pros and cons as to why they should work. The cons are: working 7 hours a day doing meaningless work, submitting oneself to an unjustified authority (manager and employer), losing a significant part of one's freedoms. The only pros seem to be a slight improvement in income and a reduction in social stigma.

[The Old Git]

Moreover, those who choose not to work are generally those with the worst prospects. They have the most limited range of jobs which they can choose from and they will be low paid ones. Moreover, the jobs available are most likely to be most monotonous, boring, and soul-sucking jobs that anyone could do.

 

Yeah, we should let them be surgeons or airline pilots. Life's just so unfair.

 

I'd like to play for Man Utd please, or possibly lie in bed most of the day while others produce food and entertainment for me.

[bluemonday]

or possibly lie in bed most of the day while others produce food and entertainment for me.

You want to be a Politician?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Moreover, those who choose not to work are generally those with the worst prospects. They have the most limited range of jobs which they can choose from and they will be low paid ones. Moreover, the jobs available are most likely to be most monotonous, boring, and soul-sucking jobs that anyone could do.

 

Yeah, we should let them be surgeons or airline pilots. Life's just so unfair.

 

I'd like to play for Man Utd please, or possibly lie in bed most of the day while others produce food and entertainment for me.

 

Well if they had those jobs a new pro would be the wage, and in the case of the surgeon working in the NHS it would be the provision of social service to the public.

 

Yes, life is unfair AND the capitalist system is a selfish one. So when people make selfish decisions it is hypocrisy to complain about it and be happy about the system we live in.

[The Old Git]

Well if they had those jobs a new pro would be the wage, and in the case of the surgeon working in the NHS it would be the provision of social service to the public.

 

Don't understand the first bit, but surely anyone can be a surgeon - all they have to do is work hard at school, take A levels, go to uni, study and pass more exams, then work their bollocks off at med school, etc. and end up a surgeon. Or course, some don't want to work hard to better themselves, others simply don't have the talent or skills.

 

Yes, life is unfair AND the capitalist system is a selfish one. So when people make selfish decisions it is hypocrisy to complain about it and be happy about the system we live in.

 

You see to be the main one complaining about the system. I'm not

[Pipsqueak]

In an anarchist society the incentives to work are not based on earnings, that is the difference. The incentive is based upon people's desires to help and support each and produce for the greater good. As we are animals that seek to cooperate not compete.

 

hence the achilles heel of your views. not every one wants to contribute, those that do are the ones who are working now and not taking the piss out of the wank benefits system. what happens to those folks in your world that just won't do anything but take?? if everyone had that attitude we'd all starve to death or be killing each other for what food there was. i'm going back to my silly fkr conclusion.

 

I wouldn't feel that satisfied. In the current system we live in, a capitalist system, you have a need to compete against others which runs completely against our basic drives to cooperate and help out others.

 

 

 

but our instinct IS to compete, for food, mates and teritory, its built in. the fact that the system we live in protects the weeker specimins is comendable, might is right is not how the system works. if you want to live in that system move to zimbabwe. we are pack animals with all the instincts of alfa male or female of those systems. you can get along with the majority, but there is always something or someone that comes along and needs dealing with.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well if they had those jobs a new pro would be the wage, and in the case of the surgeon working in the NHS it would be the provision of social service to the public.

 

Don't understand the first bit, but surely anyone can be a surgeon - all they have to do is work hard at school, take A levels, go to uni, study and pass more exams, then work their bollocks off at med school, etc. and end up a surgeon. Or course, some don't want to work hard to better themselves, others simply don't have the talent or skills.

 

Yes, life is unfair AND the capitalist system is a selfish one. So when people make selfish decisions it is hypocrisy to complain about it and be happy about the system we live in.

 

You see to be the main one complaining about the system. I'm not

 

All I meant by 'the first bit' was that the surgeon and the airline pilot earn a high wage. That high wage compensates for the cons that are involved in working in a capitalist system.

 

You are right in a sense, some do not work hard in school for the purpose of bettering themselves. However, once they leave school they must work to survive, and they will end up with a 9-5 job where they will work hard. Technical a lot of people could be a surgeon, but even if there could more incentives at school for children to work hard schooling should NEVER revolve around the needs of work, but more pertinently the capabilities and intelligence of people differs. But it would be wrong for those with the brains to reap the rewards at the expense of those who do not.

 

In terms of complaining what I mean is that people really should not complain about others scrounging whilst at the same time be proponents of the current 'capitalist' system. The capitalist system produced unemployment and scroungers.

 

but our instinct IS to compete, for food, mates and teritory, its built in. the fact that the system we live in protects the weeker specimins is comendable, might is right is not how the system works. if you want to live in that system move to zimbabwe. we are pack animals with all the instincts of alfa male or female of those systems. you can get along with the majority, but there is always something or someone that comes along and needs dealing with.

 

I disagree. Our instincts are to cooperate to share food when it is scarce. Primate instincts regarding territory is extinct, humans simply do not form the groups and inhabit an environment in which territorial protection is to be fought for. As for mates I would maybe agree, there is some competition. My overall view is that human beings and animals spend more time cooperating and spend more time meeting their mutual needs than they do to compete.

 

The weak are not necessarily left to die in most animal groups and certainly aren't with humans. And it is a reflection of our concern for the weak that produced such things as the welfare state which runs against the capitalist trend.

And in the system we live in it is might that appears to be accepted as right. The state is the might and people accept that and people accept the might of the rich and powerful as they have stolen so much of what is should be shared. Talk of humans as pack animals and consisting of players such as the alpha males and females makes sense in small groups and in specific circumstances, but it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in the larger make-up of society. Alpha males do not dominate in society; it is those with money.