So I haven't written much lately and Billy remarked on it this morning, so I decided to give our readers a taste of what has been going on in my mind the past few months. I've been tempted to write a few times, but either there were too many new posts on those days or I felt that I needed a more coherent vision of what I was aiming for. Now I've got both space and a vision, so here goes.

This is the first in what will be a series of posts on what constitutes a virtuous society or at least a version of a virtuous society. This has to be a series because it's too much for one article and I'm not trying to talk about a panacea or silver bullet, so it'll take some time to lay out. Essentially this series will pose the question "What makes a society virtuous?" and attempt to answer it. When I talk about society here, I'm not just talking about a nation, but a city, a community, basically any group of people sufficiently large that they don't all know each other and are reliant in one way or another and where people are affected by the actions of others. Technically this can go global if you really want it to, but I'm not that ambitious yet.

One of the first things a society must deal with when defining itself is how to deal with problematic people or behaviors. Do we allow individuals absolute free reign to do as they please with absolutely no restrictions? Do we force people to comply with a set of rules by using the police and coercion? Do we control every aspect of a member's life with a police state? The virtuous society does none of these.

A virtuous society uses a combination of informal social control mechanisms and police power. Before anyone (Tom) screams, I want to qualify the hell out of that statement. Police power should only be used for the most egregious and outrageous conduct. By that I mean things like violence against the helpless, using a weapon on an unarmed person, murder, irreparable property damage (I'm thinking arson or something like that), fraud, etc. This is not to say that there wouldn't be laws against other things like battery, intimidation, or even petty traffic offenses. They just wouldn't have to be enforced much and they would be relatively low priority. Sort of like decriminalizing drug possession. It's still not legal or ok, just not something we're going to pursue all that vigorously hopefully because it won't be necessary.

Let's start with correctional mechanisms. For the most egregious conduct, yeah we can still have prisons and all that, basically we don't want people hurting one another physically or severely impairing them financially/in their welfare (and if you're going to bitch that this isn't a comprehensive list, I know that, these are just examples). For the rest of the stuff we have alternatives to incarceration. What if, instead of locking up a guy who steals some kid's iPod or who gets into a bar fight, we turn him over to the community? By community I mean his family, friends, the victim, and neighbors. No, this isn't vigilante justice, that's why his friends and family are there. I'm talking about the classic shaming session where everyone gets together and asks the perpetrator to a) admit guilt, b) explain their conduct, and then c) decides on remedial measures. I'm sure you could add to that, but those are the basic elements. Now granted, this won't work on everyone and it won't make us all sit around the fire singing kumbaya, but the power of group approval or disapproval is sorely underestimated these days. The end goal is to get the offender to admit guilt understanding that they won't face punishment by some unfamiliar power and explain why they acted as they did. Once they've done that it's a negotiation process where the victim, family, friends, and neighbors talk about what would be an appropriate way for the offender to kiss the boo boo make all better.

The way that this works is we build on a common moral code. A common moral code means that we have an agreed upon set of things that we think are right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable, better and worse. A common moral code requires that the vast majority of people agree on these things, and by vast majority I'm talking maybe 95%. Now before I get any complaints about how that's not possible, I want to qualify the hell out of this too. I'm not talking about a pervasive every-little-action-you-take morality, but a solid core of what we value. We already have such a core, it's just not as big as it should be and we don't enforce it too well. 99% of us don't commit murder, why? Because we're afraid of being caught? Well if we just went by our chances of being caught on a strictly cost-benefit rational basis, murder's not such a bad thing. Ok that's a bit extreme. Let me give another one. The Los Angeles subway system operates on the honor system. Yeah, you buy a ticket, don't pass through a turnstile and once in a blue moon a sheriff wanders onto the train and asks people to show their tickets. Mostly they just accept anything that looks vaguely like a ticket without checking the date. The chances of any individual being caught are almost nothing, but the rate of payment is still about 94%. In fact, the city was arguing for a long time whether it should even bother installing turnstiles because the cost-benefit was pretty dubious. Metro loses about $5 million a year to nonpayment, but costs of implementation and maintenance would be high. People are paying because they know they should.

There's a laundry list of our core values, but I'm not really interested in the specific list at this moment. Maybe we could work that out in the comments section. What I'm interested in is strengthening the core values and expanding them so they encompass more types of behavior. No, I'm also not talking about social control over every aspect of a person's life. We're not in a 14th century village, it's neither practical nor particularly desirable. I'm just talking about normative values that keep people from messing with one another and possibly themselves. I also want to stress that this is voluntary to the extent that it wouldn't involve state power to force people to accept a core of beliefs. The state might facilitate a dialogue, but it's not going to be imposed from the top down. This is something that's organic, bottom-up if you will. A common moral code has to come from a serious conversation about what we value and what kind of life we'd like to live. It's more than just the golden rule because it's about how you treat nature, your neighborhood, and abstract entities (businesses, other societies, etc).

Before Tom tells me that this can only come from religion, I'm going to say that religion isn't enough. Religion can be an element, but it's simply insufficient both because the language of religion tends to be either-or and because it would by its very nature require physical coercion. Why? Well quite simply that to use religion we'd probably have to pick a religion and well, we live in a diverse, pluralistic society where not everyone has the same religion or any religion at all. We can take elements from religious teaching, sure. I'm good with that, even as a non-theist. We can use some universal elements particularly from multiple religious traditions, but we need more. No, we need a serious society-wide (depending on what level we're talking it could be national) dialogue about first principles and what we are about as a society and sort of argue it out. Think of it as a moral constitutional convention but with its endpoint being something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or in this case Society X's Declaration of a Moral Consensus).

Ok before I go on too long, I want to wrap up quickly by reminding you all before the flames start to spout that I'm not talking about forcing people to do anything. I'm talking about approval and disapproval, the casual "Hey Jim you're a bastard for kicking that dog" type of thing. Also, I'm not talking about pervasive Spanish Inquisition dogma or even Salem witch trials stuff. I'm talking about a basic set of dos and don'ts that the vast majority of us can agree on and enforce. Yeah we'd be our brother's keepers. I'm also ok with that. We'd also have consciences. Crazy stuff.

Labels: Brandon, society, sociology, The Virtuous Society

So here's something I found interesting. Parents spying on their teenagers and reading their emails. Fantastic. If my parents had done that when I was 16 I would have gotten in so much trouble. They would have known all of my um activities... But yeah. Interesting stuff...

Labels: Brandon, society

The man who made my future, and the future of an entire generation of pocket-protector-sporting geeks died this morning. Before he worked his magic, there was no revenge for nerds. Those who were too skinny, too smart, or too uncool for sports and the popular social cliques of high-school and college had no recourse but to dwell in dark apartments, alone, living lives of quiet desperation as they completed their collections of photos of steam locomotives.

Gary Gygax changed all that.

In 1974, my buddy Pat, of orange-police-car fame, arrived back in Champaign-Urbana after a trip to the Lake Geneva, Wisconsin area. With him, he brought a set of mimeographed pages he said was a game based on both miniatures and Lord of the Rings. Those of us who were experienced wargamers didn't quite know what to think and a number of us, myself included, made fun of this new phenomenon.

Labels: computer games, eulogy, Gary Gygax, society, Tet

~by Ragnar

I read a remarkable book yesterday. It is called “The Matchlock Gun,” and was written by a guy named Walter Edmunds. It was awarded “The American Library Associations’ Most Distinguished Contribution to Children’s Literature,” in 1941. It is an illustrated kids book, written at about the 4th grade level. Imagine, a kids’ book about a GUN.

It gets better.

Mr. Edmunds was a Harvard Grad, and probably his most famous work was “Drums Along the Mohawk.” It was made into a pretty good old black and white movie with Henry Fonda.

Anyway, the story takes place during the French and Indian Wars, and is about a Dutch family who live in upstate New York. The main character is a 10 year old boy named Edward. He lives in a small cabin with his mother, father and younger sister. His father keeps a musket hanging on pegs above their door, and above their fireplace they have an heirloom of his mothers. It is a Spanish Matchlock Gun, that once belonged to her grandfather. Edward is fascinated by it.

A matchlock gun is a very primitive gun that has no ignition device. No hammer or flint. To fire it, you literally touch a match to a hole in the barrel, opposite the business end, just like firing an old pirate cannon. Hence the name “Matchlock”.

The matchlock gun of Edward's Mother is a massive thing, longer than Edward is tall and so heavy that he cannot hold it without one end or the other resting on the ground. It has ornate brass-work and a big blocky wooden stock. The muzzle is bell-shaped like a Blunderbuss. It is really as much of a small cannon as it is a gun.

So the story progresses with Edwards father being called to support the militia because the French and Indians are attacking the settlements. Edwards mother becomes concerned when she sees the smoke of burning settlements in the distance and realizes that the Indians have gotten past the militia and into their valley. She realizes she has to defend her home and children. First she uses an axe and chops a small hole in the wall of the cabin onto the front porch, or stoop. The hole is just big enough to stick a gun barrel through. (do you see where this is going)

She and Edward take the Matchlock gun down from over the fireplace and carry it to the table. They have no idea how to load the gun, but since it is considerably bigger than the father’s musket, they pour a double charge of gunpowder in. They drop in a couple of musket balls, and realizing the gun holds much more, they fill it with nails and brass buttons. They use a piece of writing paper to wad the load down. After tamping the load they prop the gun up on the table with flat irons so that the muzzle sticks out of the hole in the wall and points at the front porch.

She places a lit candle by the gun and then tells Edward that she is going out to look for Indians. She instructs him that if she runs on the porch and shouts his name, he is to touch the candle flame to the matchlock and fire the gun.

She then goes out and watches for Indians, leaving Edward sitting by the table with the candle and the big gun. Sure enough she see five braves approaching the cabin. She runs to the house but misjudges the distance and they almost catch her. One throws a tomahawk and buries it in her shoulder as she flees. (this is all beautifully illustrated by the way). She collapses on the porch with the Indians mere steps behind her and intent on killing her. She yells “Edward!” He grabs the candle and sticks the flame to the barrel, firing the gun. A tremendous explosion results and he is thrown across the cabin and knocked unconscious.

His little sister wakes him and their cabin is aflame, on fire from the discharge of the gun. They go outside to help their mother and four indians are scattered on the ground dead. They remove the tomahawk from their mothers back and try to bandage her. Edward runs back into the burning house to save the matchlock gun. About then their father comes riding in with the militia.

Labels: book review, guns, philosophy, Ragnar, society

There is a mildly irritating sentiment in our society which (though I have no evidence of this) seems to be growing healthily among even liberal members of my generation that stereotyping social groups is okay because most stereotypes generally hold some truth to them. "They are stereotypes for a reason," after all. A new study coming out of the University of Chicago goes some way toward refuting that mentality.

Psychologists at the university gave female students a math test followed by a non-mathematical test. Some of the female students were casually reminded before they took the test that men consistently do better than women at standardized math tests, while some of the female students were not given such a reminder. The female students who were given the reminder did more poorly on not only the math test, but the non-math-related test afterward. This led the psychologists to some interesting conclusions about brain power, as they determined that the stereotype reminder didn't simply reduce the women's expectations for themselves, but rather took up valuable space in their brains that could have otherwise been used to process the test questions. Even women who did not buy into stereotypes performed more poorly because they were thinking too much about how they didn't want to be one of the women to perform poorly and thus grant support to the stereotype.

This is another in a long line of studies which demonstrate that reminding students of negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong makes them perform more poorly on tests. Even just being asked to fill in a bubble saying what your race or gender is (which pretty much every standardized test on the planet does) causes blacks and women to perform more poorly. Another study asked students seemingly benign questions like whether they lived in co-ed or single-sex dorms, and even this triggered thoughts of gender stereotypes and affected the students' performances. The principle can work the other way, too, as when students were asked why they chose to attend a private liberal arts college, activating what one psychologist called the students' "snob schema," making them think about how smart they are and thus causing them to perform better on the test.

None of this, of course, proves that there is no truth to stereotypes (though in many of these cases the performance gaps normally cited between genders or races are almost entirely eliminated by not triggering thoughts of stereotypes). It does, however, go a long way in demonstrating the way in which stereotypes are often times self-fulfilling prophecies, that whether they are accurate or not may not have all that much to do with the natural abilities of a given gender or race but rather with the way the stereotypes themselves have disadvantaged women and minorities. And this, of course, would lend support to the position that while stereotypes do not hold any great degree of truth, those who believe they do are in fact contributing to their damaging effects.

I think most people would agree with this conclusion when it comes to racism (I don't know of many people who still argue that whites are the naturally superior race), though I suspect many do not adhere to it when it comes to gender. There are, of course, at least some minimal natural differences between men and women due to genetics and hormones, but I personally am of the belief that the wide gulf that has been created between the genders is almost entirely socially constructed. These studies are another reason to maintain that belief.

Labels: Brian, education, gender, race, society

Peggy Noonan, always a personal favorite of mine, has an interesting take on the dissemination of information in our culture.

Tom

Labels: children, free speech, society

Not to beat a horse until it is well past dead, but Christopher Hitchens today wrote in Slate the best response-to-the-response-to-Virginia-Tech that I have read thus far. I strongly encourage you to read it. It is provocative, honest, as cynical as Hitchens always is, and absolutely correct. An awfully long excerpt to get your attention:

The grisly events at Virginia Tech involved no struggle, no sacrifice, no great principle. They were random and pointless. Those who died were not soldiers in any cause. They were not murdered by our enemies. They were not martyrs. But—just to take one example from the exhausting national sob fest of the past few days—here is how the bells were tolled for them at another national seat of learning. The president of Cornell University, David J. Skorton, ordered the chimes on his campus to be rung 33 times before addressing a memorial gathering. Thirty-three times? Yes. "We are here," announced the head of an institution of higher learning:

for all of those who are gone, for all 33. We are here for the 32 who have passed from the immediate to another place, not by their own choice. We are also here for the one who has also passed. We are one.

For an academic president to have equated 32 of his fellow humans with their murderer in an orgy of "one-ness" was probably the stupidest thing that happened last week, but not by a very wide margin. Almost everybody in the country seems to have taken this non-event as permission to talk the starkest nonsense. And why not? Since the slaughter raised no real issues, it was a blank slate on which anyone could doodle. Try this, from the eighth straight day of breathless coverage in the New York Times. The person being quoted is the Rev. Susan Verbrugge of Blacksburg Presbyterian Church, addressing her congregation in an attempt, in the silly argot of the day, "to make sense of the senseless":

Ms. Verbrugge recounted breaking through the previous week's numbness as she stopped on a morning walk and found herself yelling at the mountains and at God. Though her shouts were initially met with silence, she said, she soon was reassured by the simplest of things, the chirping of birds.

"God was doing something about the world," she said. "Starting with my own heart, I could see good."

Yes, it's always about you, isn't it? (By the way, I'd watch that habit of yelling at mountains and God in the greater Blacksburg area if I were you. Some idiot might take it for a "warning sign.") When piffle like this gets respectful treatment from the media, we can guess that it's not because of the profundity of the emotion but rather because of its extreme shallowness. Those birds were singing just as loudly and just as sweetly when the bullets were finding their targets...

[big snip]

...One should express a decent sympathy for the families and friends of the murdered, a decent sympathy that ought to be accompanied by a decent reticence. Because Virginia Tech—alas for poor humanity—was a calamity with no implications beyond itself.

Labels: Brian, crime, media, society

About a year ago I got flamed by several people and groups with whom I am generally in strong agreement when I wrote that the Danish Muhammad cartoons that caused so much trouble should not have been reprinted in the Daily Illini out of sensitivity to the Muslim community. It was one in a series of events that led to me developing a reputation for being anti-free speech.

In recent days we have all been reeling from the massacre at Virginia Tech. We have also been fascinated and repulsed by the video of the killer that NBC released (and, with the type of cynicism characteristic of a massive media conglomerate, branded with the NBC peacock to force free advertising on other news outlets carrying the video). Spokesmen from NBC, from Nightly News anchor Brian Williams to the president of NBC, have defended the airing of the video as essentially newsworthy, or at least newsworthy enough to air over the objections of police officials and family members of the victims.

The airing of the video is, of course, exactly what Cho wanted. More importantly, the airing of the video and the media bonanza that the Virginia Tech massacre spurred are exactly what future killers will want for themselves. Nothing, of course, will prevent these sorts of events from ever happening again. But it is probable, if not a certainty, that copycat killings will occur as a direct result of the mountain of attention Cho received for his acts.

Consequently, I must live up once again to my reputation and join those arguing that, as a matter of journalistic responsibility, NBC should never have aired Cho's video. Indeed, it seems sensible even for journalistic outfits, as they report on these tragedies, to not report as little as possible about the killer. Journalists will like to portray the issue as an ethical dilemma, but what really have we gleaned from Cho's video that can be described as so newsworthy that its airing is worth the future loss of lives and the future anguish of families of victims? What have we gleaned from seeing his face or knowing his name? Why should we give this man a microphone and thereby encourage other psychos to emulate his violence? Is it really worth it?

A List of Those Who Agree With Me (At Billy Joe Mills' Request)

• Peggy Noonan thinks Billy doesn't have common sense: "It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won't help."
• Mickey Kaus thinks Billy doesn't have a brain: "It seems less like an 'ethical challenge' than a no-brainer. Why encourage other potential Cho's to try for a similar publicity bonanza?"
• ABC News thinks Billy's views are a social catastrophe: "This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe."
• The National Review thinks Billy wants copycat killings: "Surely they know it will spawn copy-cats. So are they showing it because they would rather enjoy copy-cats?"
• The National Review also thinks Billy is sending a bad message: "But NBC News is about to give Cho an audience of around 10 million people for his deranged rantings. What kind of message does this send to other isolated, disturbed and angry youths who entertain the same violent thoughts as Cho?"
• The Huffington Post thinks Billy has no possible explanation for himself: "What is the possible journalistic explanation for splashing Cho's self-dramatizing poses and self-justifying bullshit over network and cable air?"
• MSNBC thinks Billy is disrespectful: "Airing the video ultimately was disrespectful to the victims and their families. It also was exploitative of Cho's condition and that of all severely mentally ill people."
• A guest on Andrew Sullivan's blog thinks Billy will cause more mass murders: "In the next few weeks and months, even over the next few years, expect to see copycat killings inspired by Cho's actions. The more saturated the media coverage, the more such events we are likely to get."
  
• Our very own Daily Illini thinks Billy has poor judgment: "Better judgment should have been used, especially considering that the images that have been aired cannot possibly be used for a greater understanding of this seriously disturbed individual or the havoc he wrought. What has happened this week has only helped to immortalize this murderer."

That's all I'll list for now, but not because there isn't a wealth of other people who share my view. Oh, two important groups I forgot: the families of the victims and the police officials involved in the case.

Anything else, Billy?

Labels: Brian, crime, media, society

New column's up today (I switched days with Jon since the school board election I'm discussing happens tomorrow and we wanted it to be timely): "Banning Kurt Vonnegut and Other Sins Against Man."

Labels: DI, education, entertainment, politics, role of government, society

New column up here: "Paper, Plastic, and the Mockery of Progress: San Francisco steps in right direction."

Labels: Brian, DI, environment, role of government, society

New column here.

Everything you need to know is in the title. ;)

For the record, Billy, the best part of Field of Dreams is actually when the little girl chokes on a hot dog. I'm also evil, though, so there's a degree of bias at hand.

Labels: DI, gender, jon monteith, jurisprudence, LGBT, society

Rarely do I get the chance to use the phrase "hot uncensored XXX action" in a column, so this one was quite a treat: "Pornography and Freedom of Speech."

Labels: Brian, DI, jurisprudence, role of government, society

My column this week is up and has already this morning generated some comments on the DI website, so it looks to be a discussion-starter: "Protecting the Covert with the Overt: The Real Problem with Ann Coulter's F-Bomb."

In the time since I wrote this column, two stories have arisen which highlight my point. The first is Gen. Peter Pace's patently absurd defense of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy by saying the military shouldn't condone homosexuality because it is immoral. The leading two candidates for the Democratic - the Democratic - presidential nomination were both unable to cleary state that homosexuality is not immoral, by the way.

The second story is a smaller one, but still pretty amazing. Garrison Keillor wrote an outrageous, hypocritical column about marriage and homosexuality that includes the following:

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife’s first husband’s second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin’s in-laws and Bruce’s ex, Mark, and Mark’s current partner, and I suppose we’ll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men—sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That’s for the kids. It’s their show. (emphasis mine--I mean, holy fuck!)

Dan Savage smacks Keillor down hard here (highly recommended you click that link).

Labels: Brian, DI, LGBT, media, society

(bumped up above the previous post so it doesn't get hidden)

My DI column is up this week: "The Exaltation of Ourselves: How We Could Be the Generation that Ruins Everything."

Labels: Brian, DI, media, politics, role of government, society

I'm in this week's Point-Counterpoint in the DI. Peruse it here, if you're so inclined.

Labels: Brian, DI, media, society

DI columnist Dan Mollison and I have this Point/Counterpoint out today on the subject of whether it would be a good idea to create a general education requirement at the university for community service.

I took the position in the DI that I support the idea, though I'd like to note that my support is hesitant. And I'd emphasize that I absolutely do not support John McCain's proposal for the federal government drafting all young Americans into 2 years of community service. I simply think there is just as much educational value in community service as there is in the class I took for my Quantitative 1 requirement, probably moreso, so why not?

Labels: Brian, DI, education, society

I alluded to it in the comments section of one of the previous posts. Read it here.

Lally adds: My column is up today as well: "Is the Smokers' Paradise Lost?"

Labels: Brian, media, role of government, society

The far north suburban village of Fox Lake neighbors my hometown of McHenry; they're both about an hour and a half northwest of Chicago. For those who live in this region, there is an informal hierarchy establishing the trashiest towns in the area. McHenry, I'm afraid, is pretty high up in the rankings. In most people's eyes, however, Fox Lake takes the top prize.

I bring it up because the Tribune reports today (sorry, subscription required) on Fox Lake's refusal to enact a smoking ban, bucking a trend followed by several nearby towns. Smoking bans have been debated ad nauseum, and I don't want to start one up here (regular readers will assume correctly that I favor them and that certain other contributors to Urbanagora vehemently oppose them), but I did want to highlight this quote from Fox Lake citizen and barbershop owner Ron Swanson that made me chuckle:

That's what this town is all about--drinking and smoking and pizza and hamburgers...and I think it should stay this way.

Am I being a liberal elitist for laughing at this man? Yes. Will this post provoke comments haranguing me for my snobbery? I wouldn't doubt it. Nevertheless: hahahahahaha!

Labels: Brian, personal, role of government, society

It has recently come to my attention that I am increasingly finding myself surrounded by people who have grown up in affluence and have for the most part only really interacted with other people who are like them in socio-economic terms. So I decided that I need to share a few stories from the other side of the tracks.

First a bit of background. I spent the first eleven years of my life in Highland Park, a neighborhood in East Los Angeles, California. When I was growing up there in the 80s it was mostly a lower middle class to working class Latino neighborhood. What most folks would call a ghetto. I happened to be a bit lucky and live right at the foot of the more affluent neighborhood of Mt. Washington, so my immediate surroundings were pretty nice. Two or three blocks away was a different story. When I was very young it was alright, but as I got older, either the neighborhood deteriorated or I just opened my eyes. I tend to think it was a little bit of both. Highland Park is mostly known for being one of the oldest parts of L.A. and its rather extensive gang culture dominated by the Avenues.

I was about nine when I realized just how dangerous the seemingly "normal" neighborhood I called home was. I remember being in my room watching TV when the front door opened and my brother, five and a half years older, about 15 at the time stumbled in with a girl supporting him. He was staggering and crying. She left shortly afterward and he stumbled through the living room and kitchen up the stairs to his room and locked the door. I don't think I saw him for two days after that. My parents had to practically break the door down to get in and when they did they found a sorry sight.

He was bruised from head to toe purple, black, and yellow. He could barely open his eyes because they were so swollen. He had small cuts all over his body and a very distinct impression of a ring on his forehead. My pop immediately took him to the police station where he was asked to identify who beat him. He saw quite a few of them but said nothing because he knew that pointing anyone out would mean that next time he wouldn't be so lucky as to only be beaten to a bloody pulp. For the next few days he stayed up in his room groaning with pain. I went up to visit him sometimes but he didn't tell me much about it.

It wasn't until three years ago that he finally told me the whole story and gave me permission to tell it in a paper I was writing for school. At the time of the incident, he was in a tagging crew (for those of you scratching your heads, a tagging crew is basically a small gang that commits petty crimes - car jacking, petty theft, and of course vandalism) that was in conflict with the Avenues. A member of his crew got into a fight with a guy in the Avenues and won (big mistake by the way) which led to what I gather to be a series of events that got the entire crew "green lighted" by the mafia. I'm told that "green lighting" is essentially permission to kill without reprisal. So a day or two after this fight, it was on. As they got out of school a sizeable group of at least 50 was waiting outside for them and it was every man for himself.

As he hurried home, a van and two cars pulled up and unloaded and the men who got out asked the dread question "where you from esse (or essay, however the hell you'd spell it)?" There being quite a sense of pride and honor in gang subcultures, he told the truth. So for the next few minutes the fifteen or so guys took turns beating the crap out of a kid that was younger than probably even the youngest among them. He was saved by a friend's sister who ran in and chased all the guys away (yes, Latina women can be that scary and powerful). She helped him up and helped him towards home as the guys cursed them and threatened him.

Two blocks from home another car pulled up and two men got out, one of whom was the biggest man my brother has ever seen in his life (and trust me, he's a big guy). Again with the question, and again with the obstinate response. The big guy was the one who gave him the ring impression that he had for the next month. All this was four days after he had been jumped into the gang. So basically he had been beaten three times in four days, and two of those times were within five minutes of each other and could very easily have cost him his life.

It took him about a month to fully recover physically and I'm not sure he has ever fully recovered otherwise. While I'd like to say this was an atypical occurrence in my early years, I'd be lying. Granted my brother was never beaten like that again, but we knew a lot of people. I remember one guy (a dwarf now that I think of it) whose cheek looked like he was carrying a golf ball in it permanently because someone hit him in the face with a baseball bat. I had my own beatings, knew people who were shot, preganant at 12...ah but those are all for another time and another story. Until then, welcome to the other side.

Labels: Brandon, crime, personal, society

~By Tom (Tet)

I figure that now is as good a time as any to do my article on my past experience with the various forms of small-C communism, anarchy and off-the-grid living. I was, as some of you know, one of the hippies back so very long ago. I watched experiments in social structures ranging from an alternative City Council in Champaign-Urbana to Stephen Gaskin's Farm in Tennessee. Virtually all of the ones I knew are gone now, major failures. Even Gaskin's Farm stopped being Communistic in 1983, switching to a system where each family was expected to support itself with its own income.

I've lived in a multi-adult household during the early period, as well as a successful 5-10 person city block/purchased house group during the last decade. Why have the ones I've been part of been successful while others have failed? There are various reasons that I'll cover in the rest of this article.

Reason #1:

Hierarchy and Coercion.

Celine's Second Law states that Communication is Only Possible Between Equals. This means that success in social interactions only occurs when there is no coercion on either side. Two of the mistakes made by unsuccessful communes were due to this principle being ignored. There is first of all the despot/guru model where the spiritual leader makes the rules with or without input from the populace. The most extreme example of this type, of course, was Charles Manson's Family. A number of the surviving communes still have this structure.

The opposite extreme was the democratic model where major terms of discussion were put to a vote. These deteriorated rapidly, since the unity was quickly broken down into power blocs and cliques, sort of like 7th Grade School elections. Almost all of these communes are gone now. (If anyone knows of any that are still operating at this time, let me know, I'd love to study why.)

The successful communes I have seen have worked on a veto principle that resembles neither of the above. In order for anything controversial to happen, there has to be a unanimous consent between all of the members. In this case, since the entire membership has agreed on the item on the agenda, no one can feel that their input has been overridden. This also has a tendency to reduce the amount of risk-taking actions, since one or more members would have the good sense to realize that the risk is too high for the action. It also encourages compromise, since in order to get part of what you want, you have to be willing to give up some things you desire to get the cooperation of other people. This veto power, however, seriously limits the number of people in a working commune, since if you get too high a number, essential changes cannot be made in time to evolve to meet crises.

Reason #2:

Inappropriate Economics for Size

I've been trying to find the approximate cut-off point for true Communism for some time--you know, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." My guess is that it's about 13.

Why does this occur? My theory is this: It has something to do with the Pareto Principle (the 80-20 rule.) I learned about this in Quality Control Engineering when we found out that 20% of the workers made 80% of the mistakes. A different 20% of the workers were responsible for 80% of the profit of the company.

How does this apply to commune living? The "from each..." formula only works if people have approximately equal amounts of both assets and liabilities. It is easy to select for this *if* the number of people in the commune are small enough that the statistics of small numbers are in operation. If you get large, suddenly 20% of the population is resentful, since their contribution is essential, but they're working all of the time. At the same time, 80% of the money/materials that they make is going to support the needs of 20% of the communal population (who are, most likely, completely different people.)

This resentment eventually destroys the commune, and occurs time after time. This is why true Communism or Socialism WILL NOT WORK IN REAL LIFE WITHOUT COERCION, and inevitably leads to a loss of freedom.

Reason #3:

Failure to deal with the rest of the world adequately.

I can best illustrate this with an example. Back around 1974, there was an alternative City Council (called the Community Council) with representatives from all of the "hippie businesses" and business collectives at that time. [There were dozens in this town, ranging from a gas station to a dressmaking collective to a restaurant. The only remainders of this period still extant are Good Vibes, Strawberry Fields and People's Performance Automotive--the rest collapsed, usually noisily and involving lawsuits.]

I was on this Council, along with my wife at the time. At one point, the Twin Cities offered us the opportunity to play Softball in the City League against teams fielded by the "straight" businesses.

Simple, right? Nope. Didn't happen.

The people within the communes refused to deal with playing SOFTBALL with the rest of the city because a) THEY KEPT SCORE, and teams should not be fielded with the idea of competiton, but merely for the enjoyment of the play and b) THEY USED RULES.

Need I say more? Billy Joe, I can sense you staring at me in disbelief. It really happened, I swear to God.

Reason #4:

Lack of a common belief system

Any government that wishes to rule without coercion cannot depend on a police force or an army to control civil order. The populace itself has to be primarily virtuous and in agreement with the social contract. The same is true of a commune. The successful ones consistently were picky, taking only those who were willing to commit to a social contract that ensured that the good of everyone was the top priority.

All it takes is one criminal or exploiter within a non-coercive social group in order for it to collapse. Human nature being what it is, those that were good judges of human nature lasted, those who were not, died.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on remarks that I've made in the past about freedom and social structure and alternative living. For those who are curious about the 60s and 70s, I hope that it also gives you the reasons (besides "hippies were stupid and stoned") that the social experiments during that period failed and showed some of the things that could be learned from them.

~By Tom (Tet)

Labels: role of government, society