Decentralized government experiment

You’re asking about free-form government?? Hutt River! Refused to recognise it was part of Australia. For decades. Wellknown around the world; massive international law case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River 

joanne said:

You’re asking about free-form government?? Hutt River! Refused to recognise it was part of Australia. For decades. Wellknown around the world; massive international law case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River 

Wasn't that a total failure?

mtierney said:

To Stav’s thought, I was living and working in Washington in the late ‘50s and witnessed, first hand, segregation, saw separate washrooms, water fountains, etc etc. It was so unfair to my New York City  eyes, but I didn’t do, or know how to, protest in my new surroundings. I have grown up since then — a lot. 

So what did you do to protest after you grew up? 

In Brooklyn, back in the ‘40s, my neighborhood was composed of Italians, Polish, Irish, and German families — virtually bock by block, self-imposed segregation, by nationality. Pre WW2, the Great Depression, and then, the war years, preceded major migration from the South. I do not remember Blacks in Church and Schools back then.
Another reason might have been the generational, multi-family housing pattern of the day. Nobody moved!

Ivy Hill was very international in its makeup — definitely a mix of races when we lived there. 

I am not a mind reader, and I explained already the fear for our safety, as the riots spread to fashionable East Orange,  with its beautiful apartments and mainline department stores, and  to Orange, which had strong business and residential neighborhoods. 
Remember, we lived in an era of News at 11 was it. No overnight stations, no internet, no cable, no iPhones, etc. We were living in close proximity to rioting and burning. Plenty of rumors, however, and newspaper coverage was intense.

The families I knew personally headed west to the boondocks, i.e.  there was  no Rt 24. No Rt 78. To an area where houses cost a whopping $35,000 on three acres, with spotty train service!
When we moved, in 1973, directly  across the street from  our house, there was a black family.  The buyers for our first home were Chinese.

basil said:

Wasn't that a total failure?

 Sorry for late reply: fierce migraine.

No, not really. The family maintained their independence and trading relationships, the son was appointed diplomatic liaison with Australia’s civil authorities (for ordinary business stuff) while Prince Leonard pursued the bigger affairs of state (Privy Court, UN etc then the interviews and tourists). 
Taught us all heaps about how our democracy works, why it works this way, how to achieve change... it was very sad when Prince Leonard died earlier this year. Lots of discussions leading to Australia Day on the topics of how relevant the date is (it’s ‘Sydney Day’ more than anything, or Invasion Day), how relevant is our federation, how much access citizens have to government and if government listens/cares, politicians & the Canberra Bubble etc. 

Seriously, worth studying. 

joanne said:

You’re asking about free-form government?? Hutt River! Refused to recognise it was part of Australia. For decades. Wellknown around the world; massive international law case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River 

 thanks joanne, that sort of thing is always interesting.

mtierney said:

In Brooklyn, back in the ‘40s, my neighborhood was composed of Italians, Polish, Irish, and German families — virtually bock by block, self-imposed segregation, by nationality. Pre WW2, the Great Depression, and then, the war years, preceded major migration from the South. I do not remember Blacks in Church and Schools back then.
Another reason might have been the generational, multi-family housing pattern of the day. Nobody moved!

Ivy Hill was very international in its makeup — definitely a mix of races when we lived there. 

I am not a mind reader, and I explained already the fear for our safety, as the riots spread to fashionable East Orange,  with its beautiful apartments and mainline department stores, and  to Orange, which had strong business and residential neighborhoods. 
Remember, we lived in an era of News at 11 was it. No overnight stations, no internet, no cable, no iPhones, etc. We were living in close proximity to rioting and burning. Plenty of rumors, however, and newspaper coverage was intense.

The families I knew personally headed west to the boondocks, i.e.  there was  no Rt 24. No Rt 78. To an area where houses cost a whopping $35,000 on three acres, with spotty train service!
When we moved, in 1973, directly  across the street from  our house, there was a black family.  The buyers for our first home were Chinese.

 Since you've responded, I'll press on a bit.I think you overestimate how much mind reading is required. Wanting safety for yourself and your family, wanting a comfortable house to live in -- these feelings are not exclusive to Irish Americans. You noted that your childhood neighborhood was "self-imposed segregation, by nationality," but I'll wager your neighborhood was less so -- having plenty of Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. And, though I also am not a mind reader, I imagine all those neighbors had similar reasons to your own for moving to Maplewood. Whether the ethnic segregation you observed in your youth was truly self-imposed or not, at any rate we can see that later generations could, and did, choose to reverse that.

And yet, what about that black family? Isn't it odd that there was only one? Surely black families of the era also wanted the safety and comfort you and your neighbors sought. Or looking farther west, toward the "boondocks" as you put it, isn't it odd that so few black families also went that route?

PVW said:

 Since you've responded, I'll press on a bit.I think you overestimate how much mind reading is required. Wanting safety for yourself and your family, wanting a comfortable house to live in -- these feelings are not exclusive to Irish Americans. You noted that your childhood neighborhood was "self-imposed segregation, by nationality," but I'll wager your neighborhood was less so -- having plenty of Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. And, though I also am not a mind reader, I imagine all those neighbors had similar reasons to your own for moving to Maplewood. Whether the ethnic segregation you observed in your youth was truly self-imposed or not, at any rate we can see that later generations could, and did, choose to reverse that.

And yet, what about that black family? Isn't it odd that there was only one? Surely black families of the era also wanted the safety and comfort you and your neighbors sought. Or looking farther west, toward the "boondocks" as you put it, isn't it odd that so few black families also went that route?

 I doubt the segregation of those neighborhoods was entirely self-imposed.  The father of one of my friends grew up in Newark in the 30s and 40s in an Italian neighborhood.  His walk home from school took him through the Irish neighborhood, where if he didn't run fast enough, the local gang would beat him up.  Those neighborhoods often enforced their own segregation of people who didn't "belong" there.  

PVW said:

And yet, what about that black family? Isn't it odd that there was only one? Surely black families of the era also wanted the safety and comfort you and your neighbors sought. Or looking farther west, toward the "boondocks" as you put it, isn't it odd that so few black families also went that route?

What's odd about it, mtierney's honest description of her family's movements through the decades describe the phenomenon called 'white flight'.  

Mobility to relocate was very curtailed during and after WW2. Few families had cars, if they did, they were vintage since auto plants Production had been converted for the war effort. Also gas was rationed.
Many folks lived close to family members because they “supported” one another during times of need. Grandma cooked and fed an extended family, and watched the kids, as wives entered the job market. 

The Garden State Parkway was not completed until the early ‘50s, I left Brooklyn in 1954 when I got married. “The Greatest Generation” was home from the wars.

Good grief, when I mentioned the black family who lived across the street from me, I didn’t mean they were an anomaly. Actually, when we moved onto that quiet street with our four kids, some may have said “There goes the neighborhood!”

New York City neighborhoods has always beckoned immigrants— Little Italy, Chinatown, etc — who felt safer in familiar surroundings. Now, of course, a different class of people — the moneyed — have taken over many sections, changing the names of areas to reflect a more sophisticated tone, real estate wise.  Where have the others gone?

As far as your question why we didn’t move west toward the boondocks, we loved Maplewood, husband grew up there, and his parents were still living there. Four kids were in school. We stayed in that house 37 years.

I worked with an African-American woman who migrated to NJ from North Carolina in the 50s, She told me that the Rental Listings in the Newspapers were segregated by race. There were separate listings for "White" and "Colored".

I did not know that the riot in Newark in 1967 spread to Orange and East Orange. I never heard that before. I will try to do some research.

STANV said:

I worked with an African-American woman who migrated to NJ from North Carolina in the 50s, She told me that the Rental Listings in the Newspapers were segregated by race. There were separate listings for "White" and "Colored".

I did not know that the riot in Newark in 1967 spread to Orange and East Orange. I never heard that before. I will try to do some research.

 The rioting and destruction in Newark destroyed the housing and commercial business in East Orange, Orange as fear spread. Decades later, I am happy to hear that these areas have seen a rebirth due to location, location, location.

mtierney said:

Mobility to relocate was very curtailed during and after WW2. Few families had cars, if they did, they were vintage since auto plants Production had been converted for the war effort. Also gas was rationed.
Many folks lived close to family members because they “supported” one another during times of need. Grandma cooked and fed an extended family, and watched the kids, as wives entered the job market. 

The Garden State Parkway was not completed until the early ‘50s, I left Brooklyn in 1954 when I got married. “The Greatest Generation” was home from the wars.

Good grief, when I mentioned the black family who lived across the street from me, I didn’t mean they were an anomaly. Actually, when we moved onto that quiet street with our four kids, some may have said “There goes the neighborhood!”

New York City neighborhoods has always beckoned immigrants— Little Italy, Chinatown, etc — who felt safer in familiar surroundings. Now, of course, a different class of people — the moneyed — have taken over many sections, changing the names of areas to reflect a more sophisticated tone, real estate wise.  Where have the others gone?

As far as your question why we didn’t move west toward the boondocks, we loved Maplewood, husband grew up there, and his parents were still living there. Four kids were in school. We stayed in that house 37 years.

But the black family was an anomaly. I'm asking you to reflect on why that was.

Consider this -- you grew up at a time when strongly demarcated ethnic neighborhoods of Italians, Irish, Poles, etc were very much a thing. And yet the children of these neighborhoods were able to leave these ethnic ghettos and integrate into broader American society, and their children are in many cases have gone back to some of these old neighborhoods, no longer as "ethnics" but as part of the "different class of people — the moneyed."

Upward mobility -- but a mobility that has been strictly curtailed in the case of African Americans, to the point that the sole black family in your new Maplewood neighborhood is worth remarking on, but your Polish, Greek, etc "white" neighbors are just the regular, expected background.

Lord Pablum alludes to the "phenomenon called 'white flight'", wondering if I find it odd. Of course I do, as should we all. Why is it that white people can fly in the first place, even if they were born into a segregated Irish inner city neighborhood, but black people can't as easily just pick up and flee to new opportunities?

That's what I'm trying to call your attention to -- that we accept all this as just natural or unremarkable, whereas if you really pay attention, it's the farthest thing from natural. It is unnatural that a group of people, with the same desires for safety and opportunity, should not avail themselves of the same opportunities others have. And if they have not availed themselves of those opportunities, then there must be something preventing them from doing so -- those opportunities, in fact, have not been available to them. And if we ask why it is that Irish Americans and Italian Americans and all kinds of other American can seek those opportunities but African Americans have not been able to, then we start to dimly see what terms like "institutional racism" or "systematic racism" mean, and that there's absolutely nothing "natural" about any of this.

I don’t think I ever said my experience was “natural”. It was the world I was born into. I was lucky to have parents who ran a penny candy store in Brooklyn during the Depression. They had work when many did not. 

True equality would require all people have the same income, be gainfully employed, be healthy, wise, and whose children were all exceptional. Lake Wobegon? Never existed. 

Fake Communism and/or Socialism, American style, won’t ever be a solution to inequalities among our citizens. 

As to your statement:

“ And if we ask why it is that Irish Americans and Italian Americans and all kinds of other American can seek those opportunities but African Americans have not been able to, then we start to dimly see what terms like "institutional racism" or "systematic racism" mean, and that there's absolutely nothing "natural" about any of this.“

Do you believe that there has been no progress  made for minorities  in America since the Civil War?  Or since the World War 2 era? 
Actually, in rereading your statement,  it sounds discriminatory toward the millions of immigrants who populate this country.

America is a work in progress — and always will be.

mtierney said:

STANV said:

I worked with an African-American woman who migrated to NJ from North Carolina in the 50s, She told me that the Rental Listings in the Newspapers were segregated by race. There were separate listings for "White" and "Colored".

I did not know that the riot in Newark in 1967 spread to Orange and East Orange. I never heard that before. I will try to do some research.

 The rioting and destruction in Newark destroyed the housing and commercial business in East Orange, Orange as fear spread. Decades later, I am happy to hear that these areas have seen a rebirth due to location, location, location.

 I do not believe that resulted from the riot. It resulted from Black people moving in to those towns and what lord-pablum rightly called "White Flight".

mtierney said:

I don’t think I ever said my experience was “natural”. It was the world I was born into. I was lucky to have parents who ran a penny candy store in Brooklyn during the Depression. They had work when many did not. 

True equality would require all people have the same income, be gainfully employed, be healthy, wise, and whose children were all exceptional. Lake Wobegon? Never existed. 

Fake Communism and/or Socialism, American style, won’t ever be a solution to inequalities among our citizens. 

As to your statement:

“ And if we ask why it is that Irish Americans and Italian Americans and all kinds of other American can seek those opportunities but African Americans have not been able to, then we start to dimly see what terms like "institutional racism" or "systematic racism" mean, and that there's absolutely nothing "natural" about any of this.“

Do you believe that there has been no progress  made for minorities  in America since the Civil War?  Or since the World War 2 era? 
Actually, in rereading your statement,  it sounds discriminatory toward the millions of immigrants who populate this country.

America is a work in progress — and always will be.

 If you won't concede that systematic racism has raised barriers to African Americans such that they could not enjoy the same opportunities you have, then what is your explanation for why so many Irish Americans have been able to come up from the ethnic ghettos while so many African Americans have not?

mtierney said:

Do you believe that there has been no progress  made for minorities  in America since the Civil War?  Or since the World War 2 era? 
Actually, in rereading your statement,  it sounds discriminatory toward the millions of immigrants who populate this country.

America is a work in progress — and always will be.

 The progress made by Black people since the Civil War has been much slower and much less than the progress made by White ethnic groups whose forebearers came to this Country 40-50 years after the Civil War

STANV said:

 I do not believe that resulted from the riot. It resulted from Black people moving in to those towns and what lord-pablum rightly called "White Flight".

 It also resulted from the racially motivated routing of the GSP and I-280, which sliced those towns into pieces, and separated many of thier residents from the local business districts.

PVW said:

Curious on terp's take on this:

Free Food, Free Speech and Free of Police: Inside Seattle’s ‘Autonomous Zone’ (NYT)

In a neighborhood that is the heart of the city’s art and culture — threatened these days as rising tech wealth brings in gentrification — protesters seized the moment. They reversed the barricades to shield the liberated streets and laid claim to several city blocks, now known as the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.”

(Quote block not working)

--

I'll be curious to see a few things:
- how the official government, from the municipal to state, respond
- how long this lasts, and how successfully the participants manage to navigate the cross-currents of different interests among themselves
- what innovations and ideas mainstream government can take from this

 Sorry it took me a while to respond.  As fate would have it it looks like Seattle is going to close this dowm.

Personally,  i don't think that this is a very good example of Anarchy.  At least, not in the way I understand it.  It is closer to the connotation that anarchy has today: chaos.  These people in CHAZ or CHOP or whatever were not Anarchists in the Rothbardian sense.  All of their demands were statist demands.  They seem to have no respect for personal property.  In fact, if I owned property in that neighborhood I would sue the city and probably that excuse they have for a mayor.

I had thought it would last longer.  I figured it would last through the summer.  This was a mob that was occupying a neighborhood.   They needed outside help just for sustenance.   It was allowed to exist as long as it was politically convenient. I guess now that it's not, Seattle's mayor no longer "believes in democracy" to quote her.

BTW:  I LOL'd at this quote from the article...

Carmen Best, the police chief, said in a video message on Thursday that the decision to leave the police station was not hers and that she was angry about how it developed. She also shared, without evidence, concerns about problems in the area, such as businesses being asked to pay money in exchange for protection

Can anyone imagine being forced to pay for protection?!?!  *clutches pearls*

Not trying to revive long- dead threads that should stay dead. However some time back deep within this discussion there was an inquiry about micronations, and whether any are successful/how you measure their success? 
live just read the linked article on Sealand and thought you might find it curious in light of that conversation.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200706-sealand-a-peculiar-nation-off-englands-coast?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld

joanne said:

Not trying to revive long- dead threads that should stay dead. However some time back deep within this discussion there was an inquiry about micronations, and whether any are successful/how you measure their success? 
live just read the linked article on Sealand and thought you might find it curious in light of that conversation.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200706-sealand-a-peculiar-nation-off-englands-coast?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

Not de

joanne said:

Not trying to revive long- dead threads that should stay dead.

Not dead. It's resting.

basil said:

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

 There is a fictional one in "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. Actually it's an almost total anarchy.

basil said:

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

 It seems as if Sealand’s beginnings fit your bill, starting as a protest and continuing as a statement of independence and defiance (particularly with that lovely middle-of-the-night infiltration leading to high level diplomatic negotiations). Sealand has existed for over half a century; it’s small but apparently there are people clamouring to become citizens. 
Maybe there’s just a size limitation on the ideology? Or physical proximity?

joanne said:

basil said:

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

 It seems as if Sealand’s beginnings fit your bill, starting as a protest and continuing as a statement of independence and defiance (particularly with that lovely middle-of-the-night infiltration leading to high level diplomatic negotiations). Sealand has existed for over half a century; it’s small but apparently there are people clamouring to become citizens. 
Maybe there’s just a size limitation on the ideology?

If I read the article correctly, nobody currently lives there. I am assuming this is because all Sealand nationals are more comfortable living in the UK, or whatever other country they live in. I would not call that an example of a successful independent country or society. And that is even besides the extremely limited scale.

STANV said:

basil said:

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

 There is a fictional one in "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. Actually it's an almost total anarchy.

 I don't think a fictional society qualifies as a successful (or un-successful) example.

basil said:

STANV said:

basil said:

Interesting story. I had asked for successful examples of "libertarian" societies / countries, big or small. I don't think there are any, because libertarianism in itself is deeply flawed. 

 There is a fictional one in "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. Actually it's an almost total anarchy.

 I don't think a fictional society qualifies as a successful (or un-successful) example.

 All societies are fictional to some degree. Microstates and other experiments are interesting to me as attempts to live out some fictions -- what works, for how long, and what fails and why I find can illuminate aspects of mainstream societies, where our fictions are more carefully kept hidden.

Basil, I suspect the biggest issue with Sealand would living within its borders during a time of health crisis, given WHO directives. The skeleon population and defensive force are there

typs (second cataract surgery tomorrow)

So I haven't written much on this thread since starting it because I was watching to see how the situation developed, and then after the city cleared it out I was I'd have some clearer thoughts. Which hasn't really happened -- I just have some half thoughts. One of which is that the use, and response to, violence is a very hard problem.

Violence is what finally did CHOP in. The city decided to put an end to it after two people died in shootings. But CHOP was also a response to violence, coming out of protests against police violence.

One could I suppose try to argue that the violence in CHOP shows that the police are needed, but I don't think that's quite right. Very few people anywhere have been saying that security is not a real issue, what they've been saying is that the institution that is supposed to provide that security -- the police -- have not been doing that, in fact have been making things worse. I don't know Seattle super well (when I lived out that way it was on the other side of the state), but from what I've read and understand the area CHOP was in has long been vulnerable to incidents of violence. And beyond Seattle, the broader problem is that in a lot of poor neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color, there is a deep and ongoing problem with violence, and the police are not seen as effective in stopping it, nor in finding and arresting the instigators, and getting the police involved too often just causes collateral damage without solving anything, so there is very little trust. I think the second amendmentists who talk about how you can't trust the state to look out for your safety, that they won't arrive in time, and that's why you should carry a gun, should explain why they want every neighborhood to look like our most poor and violent neighborhoods, where a lot of people live that logic (I've had the same thought when in a very poor part of Latin America a few years back. A lot of guns. I suppose people were polite, but it didn't seem like a set up I'd want our country to aspire to).

So, if the police were actually useful in preventing violence, a lot of these protests wouldn't have happened in the first place, so I think talk about defunding or abolishing the police has to be seen in that context.

But then what -- you get rid of the police because they're not actually helping, but what does help? And CHOP didn't really come up with a good answer, though maybe that's a lot to ask of something that wasn't planned so much as just kind of happened, that wasn't a movement with leaders but more a situation of circumstances.

I have read The Dispossessed. LeGuin's one of my favorites. I think one big difference between a vision like LeGuin's and a libertarian vision is the question of property. I don't recall if it was terp or someone else who a few years back was arguing that private property is an inherent right, but I disagree. It's one way to organize society, and has it positive and negatives, but I wouldn't put down as a "right" the same way life or other natural rights are. I suppose that puts me more on the "anarchist" than "libertarian" side.

Well, that's a mess of a post. Maybe at some point I'll have something more coherent.