States don't exist. But Cities DO!

[NonEntity]

Marc,

I've brought this up before and you blew it off. As a result of listening to Peter Schiff, I want to bring it up again as I think that it is important.

First, I must agree with you that cities as political entities, do not exist. Just as states don't. They are fictional creations in some peoples' minds. So cities in THAT form do not exist.

You want a voluntary society, right? By definition, a state is an arbitrarily defined bit of geography overwhich certain people claim the monopolistic right of power over all those within those borders. A city, as a political unit, is exactly the same, only smaller.

But. Consider the city as an organic creation of animals. Cities are natural. They form themselves organically. People gather to socialize and engage in commerce. Specialization happens. Cities support the surrounding countryside, and conversely the surrounding countryside supports the city. Farmers need tools and markets. Merchants need groceries and leather and trees and iron and so on. It is an organic thing. And the reason that I am bringing this up is that I think that a city is exactly the kind of thing that a voluntaryist/no-state-project mind needs to recognize as a wonderful solution to supplant STATES.

As long as a city evolves from the voluntary actions of the various players it is a marvelous thing. It enhances life for all parties. You can't have a foot without a heart. The foot would die for lack of oxygen and all sorts of other stuff. But you sorta need a foot to enable the body to go about getting the stuff that the heart ends up pumping around. Both rely upon each other.

Humans are social animals. We specialize. That's what makes us thrive. Thriving is good, no?

So I'm recommending to you that you back off a bit from the "cities are bad" mantra that you tend to spout and consider the city from the organic nature of it's development rather than the political. I think you'll find that the best that we can hope for from mankind owes a lot to the nature of what cities are. Jane Jacobs wrote a great book about this many years ago called Cities and the Wealth of Nations. In it she pointed out that nations were completely fictional, whereas cities were the heart of a dynamic social machine. It's a wonderful read if you have the time.

- NonE

[inertia]

I want to see what Marc says, but here's my question. Do you think laws should be established on the basis of some kind of natural organic thingy?

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:I want to see what Marc says, but here's my question. Do you think laws should be established on the basis of some kind of natural organic thingy?

As I've said many times before (but can't point to specific posts), I believe that all things should be voluntary. Somali Customary Law (or Xeer) is pretty much the closest thing, philosophically, to this goal. I think it is well worth serious examination and consideration.

I agree with Marc: Law is an opinion backed by a gun. (Thus unacceptable among civilized people.)

- NonE

[inertia]

Here's the thing, though. If you get to the point where they have these actual cities and they go ahead and establish laws, they're going to claim jurisdiction in the city.

.
.
.
Q: Factually, what is the city?
A: A natural organic thingy.

What I'm saying is, for the basis of law, they are always using a city in the non-factual sense to form jurisdiction. In that non-factual sense, it still doesn't exist. It never will.

[NonEntity]

To expand slightly upon what I said previously, consider the way a state is formed, by arbitrarily drawing lines and announcing edicts, versus the way a city is formed, by the voluntary actions of those who move in or out of the dynamism that forms from closer or further interaction with other people.

I hope this may elucidate the point I'm attempting to make.

- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

NonEntity Wrote:Marc,

I've brought this up before and you blew it off. As a result of listening to Peter Schiff, I want to bring it up again as I think that it is important.

If I did blow it off, then I conveniently forgot about it already.

NonEntity Wrote:First, I must agree with you that cities as political entities, do not exist. Just as states don't. They are fictional creations in some peoples' minds. So cities in THAT form do not exist.

You want a voluntary society, right? By definition, a state is an arbitrarily defined bit of geography overwhich certain people claim the monopolistic right of power over all those within those borders. A city, as a political unit, is exactly the same, only smaller.

But. Consider the city as an organic creation of animals. Cities are natural. They form themselves organically. People gather to socialize and engage in commerce. Specialization happens. Cities support the surrounding countryside, and conversely the surrounding countryside supports the city. Farmers need tools and markets. Merchants need groceries and leather and trees and iron and so on. It is an organic thing. And the reason that I am bringing this up is that I think that a city is exactly the kind of thing that a voluntaryist/no-state-project mind needs to recognize as a wonderful solution to supplant STATES.

Sounds like you're just hung up on a word, don't you actually mean community, not city? This thing about cities being natural reminds of what some crazy Greek wrote, that Aristotle guy.

NonEntity Wrote:As long as a city evolves from the voluntary actions of the various players it is a marvelous thing. It enhances life for all parties. You can't have a foot without a heart. The foot would die for lack of oxygen and all sorts of other stuff. But you sorta need a foot to enable the body to go about getting the stuff that the heart ends up pumping around. Both rely upon each other.

Humans are social animals. We specialize. That's what makes us thrive. Thriving is good, no?

So I'm recommending to you that you back off a bit from the "cities are bad" mantra that you tend to spout and consider the city from the organic nature of it's development rather than the political. I think you'll find that the best that we can hope for from mankind owes a lot to the nature of what cities are. Jane Jacobs wrote a great book about this many years ago called Cities and the Wealth of Nations. In it she pointed out that nations were completely fictional, whereas cities were the heart of a dynamic social machine. It's a wonderful read if you have the time.

- NonE

Wow, I don't remember spouting that stuff, but ok. I thought my mantra was no service should be provided at the barrel of a gun.

I think this just boils down to splitting hairs over a word: city, as opposed to using community or society. I agree though, a non-political city is a goal. We just want to eliminate the root problem, the violence, we still want the market and infrastructure.

[Marc Stevens]

inertia Wrote:I want to see what Marc says, but here's my question. Do you think laws should be established on the basis of some kind of natural organic thingy?

I think we as humans have already done this; experience has told everyone of us that's it's wrong to initiate force and hurt others.

[Jonathanr]

The thing about cities (and towns, for that matter), is that, while it's easy to establish their centre, the boundary is quite nebulous, and if there is one for political purposes, it is arbitrary. They really are an extension of a social meeting place - and people tend to socialize on a free-will basis.

(except perhaps Christmas with the in-laws). ;D

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:

inertia Wrote:I want to see what Marc says, but here's my question. Do you think laws should be established on the basis of some kind of natural organic thingy?

I think we as non psychopathic humans have already done this; experience has told everyone of us capable of empathic understanding that's it's wrong to initiate force and hurt others.

[right](crucial corrections by NonEntity) :winkwink:[/right]

- NonE

[Jonathanr]

is psychopathy simply lack of experience with the power of empathy, like anger is a failure to recognize and understand one's impotence?

[NonEntity]

Jonathanr Wrote:The thing about cities (and towns, for that matter), is that, while it's easy to establish their centre, the boundary is quite nebulous, and if there is one for political purposes, it is arbitrary. They really are an extension of a social meeting place - and people tend to socialize on a free-will basis.

This is the point that Marc still fails to get. Cities are organic and are tied to the country as the front of a coin is tied to the back. You can't have prosperity in either without the other. The city and the surrounding countryside are part of a whole organism and cannot be separated. This is NOT the case with a country, which is simply an arbitrary line drawn on a map with no inherent relationship to the social dynamics which occur on both sides of that line.

The reason that I harp ( :rolleyes2: me... HARP? ) on this point is that when you lump cities in with the other purely political geographic divisions, you are throwing out (or at least seriously disparaging) the baby with the bathwater. Cities (not politics, but the dynamic interacting relationships) ADD value, whereas states only destroy it. Cities are an example of the best form of voluntary society, they form as an interactive relationship with the various participants - solely on the desires of those participants. Cities are a manifestation of voluntary action among peoples with differing desires and dreams.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Jonathanr Wrote:is psychopathy simply lack of experience with the power of empathy, like anger is a failure to recognize and understand one's impotence?

Psychopathy is the inability to have empathy, to put one's self in the "shoes" of another. A psychopath is incapable of understanding what another feels as a blind person is unable to see an image.

- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

NonEntity Wrote:

Jonathanr Wrote:The thing about cities (and towns, for that matter), is that, while it's easy to establish their centre, the boundary is quite nebulous, and if there is one for political purposes, it is arbitrary. They really are an extension of a social meeting place - and people tend to socialize on a free-will basis.

This is the point that Marc still fails to get. Cities are organic and are tied to the country as the front of a coin is tied to the back. You can't have prosperity in either without the other. The city and the surrounding countryside are part of a whole organism and cannot be separated. This is NOT the case with a country, which is simply an arbitrary line drawn on a map with no inherent relationship to the social dynamics which occur on both sides of that line.
- NonE

Now I'm confused, I thought I had agreed with you; you just seem hung up on the word city. I think we are in agreement with the what you mean by the organic city. I prefer to use the word community or society instead as they lack the political connotation.

[Marc Stevens]

NonEntity Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:

inertia Wrote:I want to see what Marc says, but here's my question. Do you think laws should be established on the basis of some kind of natural organic thingy?

I think we as non psychopathic humans have already done this; experience has told everyone of us capable of empathic understanding that's it's wrong to initiate force and hurt others.

[right](crucial corrections by NonEntity) :winkwink:[/right]

- NonE

You don't need empathy to understand it's wrong to initiate force. Psychopaths are not typically also insane whereby they do not know and understand the consequences of their actions.

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:Now I'm confused, I thought I had agreed with you; you just seem hung up on the word city. I think we are in agreement with the what you mean by the organic city. I prefer to use the word community or society instead as they lack the political connotation.

Well, what I have come to understand, first as it was pointed out by Jane Jacobs, and later as I have observed what she enlightened me to, is that cities really are amazing dynamic centers and are much more complex than what "community" or "society" reveal.

And, to be very clear, I agree with you as the word "city" reflects a political entity. I am speaking of something utterly separate.

Cities are quite amazing and wonderful things.

- NonE