Day of action against water privatisation
If you use water, or think your children or grandchildren may do so in the future, you should take action against water privatisation this Saturday, says Right to Water activist Sam Buchanan.
Protests will be held on June 12th against Rodney Hide's Local Government Amendment Bill in Wellington and the Hutt, as well as other towns and cities throughout New Zealand.
“The court jester of New Zealand politics is up to his old tricks – tabling an innocuous sounding bill that would lead to far-reaching changes in the way local government services are provided – or not provided,” says Sam Buchanan.
The bill removes the requirement of councils to maintain control of the management of water services and extends the maximum duration of a contract with a private company to supply water from 15 years to 35. Water infrastructure will be allowed to pass out of council ownership for the duration of the contract.
“Despite gaining the support of less than two percent of New Zealanders in opinion polls, the ACT party, is determined to inflict the zany policies that emerge from Rodney's churning innards on the public. Privatisation of water is a line in the sand. If we lose democratic control of water, a basic requirement for human life will be run according to the whims of private profit,” says Sam Buchanan.
In Wellingon, meet at the bucket fountain in Cuba Mall at 11.30am, Saturday, June 12th.
Contact Sam Buchanan: quackysam@hotmail.com Phone (04) 905-585.
National Day of Action Against Privatisation Events
Whangarei
12 noon - 2.00pm
Proposed Rally outside Whangerei District Council Chambers, Forum North Building, Rust Avenue, Whangarei
Contact: Claire Swinney, (09) 430 7252 or 021-0732885
North Shore City
12 noon - 2.00pm
Rally outside North Shore City Council Chambers
1 The Strand, Takapuna
Contact: Kerry Bevan: (09) 473 3747 or percy Allison on (09) 443 0369
Waitakere City
12 noon - 2.00pm
Rally outside Waitakere City Council Chambers
6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Waitakere
Contact: Mered Barrar: (09) 836 6389
Auckland
12.00-2.00pm,
Rally outside Auckland Town Hall.
Contact Penny Bright: waterpressure @ gmail . com or (09) 846 9825 or 021 211 4 127
Website: www.stopprivatisation.org.nz/
Manukau City
12 noon - 2.00pm
Rally outside Manakau City Council Chambers
31-33 Wiri Station Road (opposite Manukau District Court), Manukau City Centre
Contact: Bill Wiki by email or 021 058 6538
Franklin District Council
12 noon - 2pm
Outside Franklin District Council Chambers
82 Manukau Road, Pukekohe
Contact: Judy Spencer (09) 236 3899 or Margaret Swift Ph Judy (09) 236 3899
Or email Franklin against Water Privatisation: thestudio @ paradise. net. nz
Hamilton
12.00-2.00pm
Rally outside Hamilton City Council Chambers
Contact: Mischelle Rhodes: tommopmog @ gmail. com or (07) 847 7405
Kapiti Coast
Coastlands stall and rally,
Contact David Scott: davidscott @ ihug. co. nz
Hutt City
12 noon - 2pm
Main Council Building, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt
Contact Anna Sutherland: anna @ yorkbay. net. nz or 021 349 411
Kapiti Coast
Coastlands stall and rally,
Contact David Scott: davidscott@ihug.co.nz
Wellington
11.30am
Bucket Fountain on Cuba Street. moving at 12.30 to the Wellington City Council Buildings, 101 Wakefield St Wellington
Contact Sam Buchanan: quackysam @ hotmail. com
Website: www.righttowater.org.nz
Christchurch, NB Sunday not Saturday
Sunday 13th June, 3pm
Cathedral Square, Cathedral will be open if its wet
Contact Eugenie Sage (03) 329 8177
Website: www.ourwaterourvote.org.nz
Dunedin
12.00-2.00pm
Dunedin Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 50 The Octogan
Contact Fliss Butcher: (03) 477 9972
or Lyndon Weggery: LWeggery @ hotmail. com
Links
More information on the national day of action, including events around the country, how to make submissions on the bill (due by June 18th) and other information on water privatisation is at:
http://www.righttowater.org.nz/waterprivatisationinNZ.html
The text of the proposed legislation can be read here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0142/latest/DLM2922407.html
Sue Kedgley from the Green Party comments on the bill here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/05/05/water-and-democracy/
And the Green Party submission guide on the bill is here:
The Maori Party has commented on their opposition to the bill here:
http://www.angoa.org.nz/pages/show_file.php?filepath=pages/news/2010-05-10-Rahui-Katene.php
And even the Labour Party opposes the bill:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/06/07/time-to-take-action-against-water-privatisation/
Comments
Very soon...
Was this date only just decided, or is it just that it was only just put up on IndyMedia? Just wondering as with only a few days notice they could be very small protests without a bit more notice for people to get the word around. Good on you for getting it organised though...and in so many places!
angry protesters greet the
angry protesters greet the smary smiling assasin in christchurch
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3793053/Angry-protesters-greet-PM
It was decided a little while
It was decided a little while ago, but yes, a bit slow getting the word out. That's just the usual thing - too few people working on too much stuff.
Cheers
Sam
Fair enough...
Fair enough, totally understandable...there's always too much to do!
If (when) they privatise water despite the protests (which I still totally think are worth it anyway), there's always hope...
"Auckland Water Pressure Group (WPG)...has been fighting against water privatisation and is best known for digging up whole streets to rip out water meters...AWSM invited the WPG to send members to Wellington to run workshops training people in dismantling water meters and concreting over them."
Sweet as, go AWSM and WPG.
http://awsm.org.nz/?p=123#runkerryrun
In the end, what are their options if you destroy water meters? Give you free water or imprison you and give you free water :-)
If water is privatisable ...
Well, if we allow water as per se to be privatised, who will own our own bodies in future? Are our bodies not largely made up of water? Do we have to pay for having the substance of our bodies paid for, because water may be a commonly tradeable commodity? Ha - wake up, it is a sick joke all this!
I appreciate that we may have a council or even some form of company run and manage water supplies. Yet, it is totally unacceptable that charges are made according to purely commercial terms!
Water is essential for us all. It costs of course to pump, filter, clean and supply it. It also costs to have waste-water cleaned and pumped into environments where they can return to better quality waters.
It is unacceptable that any organisation makes a profit by doing this. It adds a cost to the water that we do not need and do not have to accept.
So since water is an essential ingredient of every day life and existance, we cannot let it get privatised or commercialise. We may as well agree to have our blood be priced in a way that we can treat it as a commodity. How appalling!
MMP = minority rule.
This is a function of MMP. Minority views imposed on the majority and unpopular policies brought in by stealth. First we had Whanau Ora and the signing of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights. Now this.
Infrastructure ownership and management is inherently monopolistic. It's problematic trying to impose market disciplines on inherent monopolies. Our energy industry is a good example - local lines businesses are a geographical monopoly and so need price regulation to keep prices reasonable. But does that regulation work? More than a decade after corporatisation and we're still playing with the rules to try and get the balance right.
Sam, for the non-legally minded and the busy, can you please give us an overview of how the current water management regime works, what the proposed changes are, and your analysis of how that will affect the consumer - Thanks.
Sorry but MMP is hardly to blame for this!
I am aware that some people dislike MMP and that smaller parties supporting the government may at times have more clout and input in certain government decisions than the size of their popular support may justify. Yet I think that without MMP we would still be worse off. Those that followed the news today, where it was revealed that quite a number of MP's used their parliamentary or ministerial credit card beyond of what is allowed and acceptable will now know, that it was National Party and Labour Party members that indulged in such practice! I have not heard of any Green Party, Maori Party or even United Future MP that was listed as a person breaching the rules.
So I can only conclude that the smaller parties tend to be more honest and genuine about their policies and behaviour than the 2 large parties that have in the past ruled this country exclusively under First Past the Post!
They think they get away with such behaviour, because they feel they have such large guaranteed support in the population, so they get careless and even audacious.
Re water privatisation I realise that this new policy is essentially what the ACT Party supports. Rodney Hide is making sure the National led government remembers his and their party's interest and pushes for such extreme policies like extending private operation of water supplies from 15 to 35 years. His business mates love such ideas.
So taking this in consideration we must attack the government as a whole for this policy change on local government level.
As commented before I see no need and justification to have water supplies manged by profit oriented businesses. Rightly it can be said that such infrastructure operations tend to be a geographic monopoly, similar to the power supply and other infrastructure matters.
It would also be nonsensical to have true competition, because that could only be achieved by separate operators using different supply systems, so having to run differend water pipe networks. That in itself would make competition non-sensical and prohibitive, hence it is not happening. It is possible to have internet providers compete to certain degrees, but that is a totally different infrastructure that exists. Water and electricity supplies are a different kettle of fish altogether. I do not mind Councils or even SOE's running such operations, but to hand it over to profit oriented businesses trying to maximise their returns over such set periods will only leave the consumer up and open to sheer exploitation and ripping off.
NO to the law change and privatisation of water supplies!
don't mind SOE's? You're not
don't mind SOE's? You're not very radical then are u? not meaning to be overly critical just seems strange.
To "Real Limp Zip" or whatever ...
Well I must say that the old days of "worker's councils" meetings to set certain strict amounts of pairs of shoes, bricks, toilet paper rolls and such to manufacture are over, because that kind of "socialised" production has never worked very effectively and efficiently.
If I talk about "State Owned Enterprises" I leave it open for some discussion how they can be precisely structured, managed and left to operate. What we have at present as SOE's does not look so great, hence I would prefer ones with more democratic structures and more social responsibility.
That though does not mean that the concept of such an operational structure for a "business unit" is or must be a "capitalist" type of entity!
I can imagine some here pretending they understand all about economic principles and how to organise production, distribution and delivery of goods and services. But who actually has seriously studied economic disciplines?
With your comment I can well imagine you meeting with all the various collectives of various administrative councils made up of working class representatives of the whole of Greater Auckland to meet, discuss and decide upon how to build a road or footpath.
Maybe you will first of all want to abolish money and make orders for collective A, B and C to rise and appear at a certain set time, to consult with collective X, Y and Z from the Middle East to deliver some petroleum to collective nr 1256 at the Whangarei refinery to deliver petroleum for refining, and then distribute it to collectives made up of councils of boards nrs 1, 2, 3 to 122 of all various areas of Auckland to deliver diesel for machinery needed to start plaining the ground for a new road.
While you are at it I am sure you will sit down with residents and occupants of communal dwellings nr 99 to 1678 along whatever stretch of land to discuss and decide upon where exactly the route of the road will lead along!?
Good luck then with successful management of any affairs of importance.
It is easy to say that we should do away with forms of state, with all borders, open up all countries to free movement of people, let people collectively use whatever resources on whatever place on earth and to share happily and peacefully anything and everything. That is truly an ideal situation, but how do you put this in practice?
Your smart comment is typical of someone that has read a bit in some radical pamphlete, disagrees with everything around her or himself and wants to overthrow "the system" before perhaps reconsidering some alternatives or a pragmatic, practical way to achieve more progress.
Thank you for your comment and input though, although I have learnt nothing by reading it!
First we had Whanau Ora and
That list seems short, and a little one-sided.
Ok.
....and the super-city.
Now, that makes two policies for each minor party in power. Happy?
Happy? Hardly?
"Now, that makes two policies for each minor party in power. Happy?"
Hardly. You are simply not comparing apples with apples. In the case of the Maori Party, the government makes token concessions, that cost it bugger all. The minor concessions on the climate trading legislation were done to shoehorn them into supporting carbon trading as if it were viable and just solution to climate change - which it isn't. Whanu Ora mostly involves allowing Maori health providers to care for Maori, actually reducing the cost to the taxpayer of having Maori chronically mishandled by the pakeha illness system. As for the UN signing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, clearly meaningless, as Key immediately goes against its principles by refusing to acknowledge the autonomous Tuhoe territory of the Urewera.
Now if you read the Hollow Men, you would understand that the vast bulk of National's backhand agenda is being set by a lobby of national businesspeople and international warmongers, exactly the same people who set ACT's outfront agenda. The only difference between the two is that ACT are honest about their intentions, which is why they get such a pathetically small share of the vote, and have to get National to act all populist and centrist (including pretending to work with Maori Party) to win votes, so they can then carry out ACT's agenda.
Strypey
It's pointless debating the
It's pointless debating the most accurate method of quantifying policy concessions. You've talked about projected cost savings. But supposed cost savings are at the heart of any ACT policy. And whether cost savings are actually achieved will only be known in the fullness of time. So instead, I've used the number: citing two for ACT and two for the Maori Party. That's as good a method as any.
Lol. Classic. If only I was as educated and well read as you, I would understand. Right?
@Lentil"You've talked about
@Lentil
"You've talked about projected cost savings. But supposed cost savings are at the heart of any ACT policy."
Yes, this is my point. None of the policy concessions National have made to the Māori Party are incompatible with ACT policy. I doubt you could argue the same in reverse with any credibility, but hell, I'd love to see you try.
"If only I was as educated and well read as you, I would understand. Right?"
Bro, I was only recommending a book. One that shines a light into the cigar-filled backroom of the Gentleman's Club that is the National Party, is well worth the time. If you're too busy, watch the doco instead.
When I say "From hell's heart I stab at thee, vile filth from the feet of camel with the trots", THEN you'll know I'm trying to offend you. K? ;)
Aroha, Strypey
The point is that MMP gives a
The point is that MMP gives a disproportionate level of representation and control to the minority parties. That is wrong and undermines the fundamental premise of democracy. The water "privatisation" issue being a case in point.
I would love to engage in a debate about which minor party has won the greater degree of policy concessions from the National government. But I fear that would be off-topic and I don't want to be criticised for being argumentative for the sake of it.
I like the first part - Moby Dick (my Mum still has the movie on video). But the second part?
and FPP doesn't undermine
and FPP doesn't undermine democracy either?
Direct democracy or consensus is the only way to seriously honour the principles of democratic values.
Yes
Agreed. But a perfect democracy would be difficult to achieve and organise - direct democracy has its own challenges, albeit administrative rather than philosophical. I think FPP comes closer to honouring those principles than MMP, although it's not perfect.
I see my original post has been hidden. I would be interested in the reason. There wasn't anything even mildly controversial in that post. Editorial Collective?
MMP
@ Lentil "The point is that MMP gives a disproportionate level of representation and control to the minority parties."
Um, no. MMP gives *some* level of representation to the people whose soft drink preferences are outside of Coke (National) and Pepsi (Labour). It gives a disproportionate level of representation and control to politicians, but that's because it's an electoral form of democracy, not because it's a proportionally representative form. FPP does the same.
"That is wrong and undermines the fundamental premise of democracy."
Which is 'government of the people, for the people, *by* the people' - ie a union of egoists, a confederation of communities, or a federation of workers councils - in a few words an anarchist society. The state-corporate system is so busy nationalizing and privatizing everything that isn't nailed down precisely because they fear real democracy. The sacking of ECan is only one of the more obvious examples.
"The water "privatisation" issue being a case in point."
Of what? MMP giving disproportionate power to minor parties? This would only be true if water privatization was an ACT policy being forced on an unwilling National. Even on the face of things this is not so. Water privatization started in Tamaki Makaurau in the 90s, under the last National government, ACT had a smaller share of the vote then, and was not in coalition with National.It's clearly a policy they favour independently of ACT.
However, since the people at the back-end of both parties overlap considerably, both in terms of campaign donators, PR flacks etc (documented, as I mentioned, in the Hollow Men) it doesn't actually make sense to see them as separate parties, so much as separate user interface, one designed to look more centrist and be more palatable to the electorate. Beside most of the swing voters who gave the Nats the election were not voting for Key or his merry men, they were voting against the child abuse bill, after having been whipped into a hysterical frenzy by a well-funded ideological campaign. Again examples of this sort of 'dog whistle politics' are well documented in the Hollow Men.
Um, no. [MMP doesn't give a
Um, yes it does. National has to rely on one of either ACT or the Maori Party's support to pass legislation that it wants enacted. That means, despite the fact that those minor parties received only 3.65% and 2.39% of the vote respectively, they have a huge amount of political leverage. This allows those parties to progress policy platforms that, under a true democracy, would never see the light of day.
Yes, but this is a different (milder) National Government now. The proposed changes are clearly ACT sponsored. Rodney Hide is the Minister for Local Government. They are changes to local government legislation. Rodney Hide is the one fronting the change and responding to the criticism.
If I read it, will you stop going on about it?
what makes u assume real
what makes u assume real lentil is male? in business plenty of women learn how to mimic the worst aspects of men.
Why me.
Why has this become about me?
Discussions and debate should focus on opinions, not the people holding them.
FYI - I'm not a businessperson.
real lentil's too busy making
real lentil's too busy making lots of money to learn about stuff they're interested in no doubt. not too busy to post their own opinions all over this website though of course. *spew*
Your posts.
I don't make lots of money. I just call bullshit when I see it. Like when I see your posts. *spew*
Rallies outside council
Rallies outside council buildings on the weekend?
Privatisation of Water
Another important aspect to consider about "privatisation" is that competition is largely based on paying workers less for doing the same work! We only need to look at bus companies in Auckland to see how this works. The competitors expect their drivers to work longer shifts or simply get less per hour worked. That is often the only way competition is possible. I can accept some form of competition if better, more efficient and better organised systems are put into place (e.g. computer systems, administration, management). That though is often not the case. In reality the competitor can only compete by employing staff to work for less. That is not in the interest of the worker and cannot be justified. Hence if we have water companies compete as private operators we will face this very same situation. It is new right policy and Rodney Snotty Hide is supporting exactly that with his ACT Party. So people take a stand and join the protests!
why go along with competition
why go along with competition and business radical? are u an anarcho-capitalist?
Competition - yes or no, and at what level under what conditions
You are really "smart", are you not, dear "Real Lem Sip"??! As human beings we happen to be people with different faces, different sizes, differend genetic dispositions, different finger-prints, and so forth. Some are born as well talented to work manually, some are perhaps "artistic", others are good at mathematics, science and certain other fields of activity.
No matter what social order we have, we will not do away with these facts and realities! It appears you would us all have the same colour, length of arms, legs, hair, same shapes of heads and remaining bodies.
Strangely nature has not shaped us like that.
So in a just and fair social order you will still have some people more suited for some kinds of work or whatever activities than others. Hence sophisticated societies take advantage of this by sharing labour activities.
Then for the sake of achieving and upholding certain standards it must be accepted that there will always be some acceptable standards set and adhered to that encourage personal initiative. Such can well be done in a collective sense, because the individual will appreciate that she or he contributes her or his best to the total end result, while others with other skills do their bit.
You appear to be "The Real Lentil" in "new disguise", seeking to raise issues with every comment and start "splitting hairs" - or finding something wrong with everything.
Even in the previous pseudo socialist societies that did fail to wrong emphasis and also need to invest excessively in arms production, extensive security services and so there was some "competition" amongst the members of the collective. Competition can be healthy if allowed in a socially acceptable and generally beneficial way. It is destructive once the individual and her or his enhancement up to the establishment of a privileged class is the result. That in itself will eventually lead to it's downfall, because no privileged group of people will maintain their elite status for that long forever.
Ultimately the common good can only work well, because that holds together and reinforces some form of collective spirit in any society.
So try and understand "competition" in a constructive way.
Or do you seriously think that NO competition under any circumstances - i.e. NO EFFORT - will in the long run achieve much. Some people will start thinking that no effort at all is needed, hence others will pick up the tabs and simply look after them. Good luck with that kind of society.
I'm no intellectual and real
I'm no intellectual and real lem sip is definitely not real lentil. I hate that guy/gal.
in a post-scarcity society based on co-operation I don't see a place for competition.
I'm not well read but that's my feeling.
Rewards and punishment is the lowest form of eduction. Chuang Tzu.
Maybe do away with sports then
To 'Radsicle': We may as well abolish sports activities then, because these are generally based on some form of "competition" (i.e. an effort to achieve a better result or to "beat" some one or another team)!
I believe that will cut out a large part of society to get excited about such a kind of "uncompetitive" social order then.
Maybe get the pipe out, take a good toke and cruise along or ly on some exotic beach all day. Surely bananas and other fruits will simply drop down from the trees into the hungry, open mouth when food is desired.
In case of accident or illness just "pray" for some "higher magic power" to heal the sick, as a doctor may just feel too cosy to have a rest, due to feeling no urge to "make an effort" and get up and help? Surely a well meaning collective spirit will be enough to ensure necessary development at a leisurely pace that everybody can keep up with. All will be cared for I trust.
are u saying all sports are
are u saying all sports are based on competition? I agree the overwhelming majority are. that is why elites pour in millions to ensure the artificial trait of competition to be propagated through society.
are u saying given the opportunity to live in a productive world without barriers ppl would be lazy? I believe neither laziness nor competition is natural nor innate.
leisurely pace sounds great. I think if a group of ppl find themselves working at a greater level of efficiency then why not work less and spend more time relaxing?
u don't seem much of an anarchist to me although I like many of your comments. are u authoritarian commie or something?
I don't think high tech healthcare is possible in a fair and just world although an increase in basic primary healthcare often helps to intervene early and thereby avoid serious future problems.
why don't u chill so we can discuss calmly? being so aggressive and defensive (or reactive) doesn't create the atmosphere for positive inclusion in the debate. others will remain silent if differences of opinion are met with such force.
I never claimed to be an anarchist and do not intend to be one!
I never claimed to be an anarchist and do not intend to be one!
The fallacy of anarchism is that you believe that the whole world adopting an anarchist way of life and vision will turn the world into a totally "free" and more peaceful world, without any limitations or authority - and that it will function better than any society with a collective organisation based on some common set of rules.
Also anarchists reject the idea of a state, because that is largely the essence of being an anarchist.
My argument and view is that you will only have a functioning society, whether on a global or regional level, if it is based on commonly accepted rules and a functioning organisation.
That will necessitate some form or structure like a state. Without such organised society many human efforts will simply be impossible to implement and realise, be they of technical, scientific, agricultural, infrastructure or whatever kind.
If you are an anarchist I will agree to disagree with you on a number of issues and can only wish you the best of luck in going ahead with your agenda.
I choose to go down another way. If that is unacceptable to you, then you will somehow find contradictions within your own views and interpretations as being an "anarchist". Or can you indeed be so "tolerant" to accept another view-point?
"I never claimed to be an
"I never claimed to be an anarchist and do not intend to be one!
The fallacy of anarchism is that you believe that the whole world adopting an anarchist way of life and vision will turn the world into a totally "free" and more peaceful world, without any limitations or authority - and that it will function better than any society with a collective organisation based on some common set of rules.
Also anarchists reject the idea of a state, because that is largely the essence of being an anarchist.
My argument and view is that you will only have a functioning society, whether on a global or regional level, if it is based on commonly accepted rules and a functioning organisation."
That is anarchism! I generally try not to get in discussion that has spun off from the original threads debate, but this is an obvious point that has to be made. Anarchism isn't 100% individualist. It recognises the need of rules and organisation that is accepted by the common/the people/the community on the small and grand scale...without that it would be chaos and disorder. No one in their right mind would want that.
Fair enough - that is your interpretation
Fair enough - that may be your interpretation, but indeed there is a wide range of interpretations for "anarchism".
I simply beliefe in "a free mind", freedom of expression, basic democratic principles, a just, fair and on equality based legal, social, administrative and economic system, where individual freedom is not suppressed or compromised due to other's personal, economic or whatever interests.
A form of social order necessitates some form a administration like a "state", if a progressive society is to be maintained. There can of course be many forms of states, federations of such or similar entities, global organisations, which indeed exist.
To my understanding the above range of values can best be realised and put into practice in a society with a "collective spirit". If that corresponds with your interpretation of "anarchism", then fair enough.
Following links may just enhance the discussion, which I admit has gone a bit off course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchist
http://www.socialanarchism.org/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist
http://www.enotes.com/oxsoc-encyclopedia/anarchism
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22753/anarchism
Defining the 'state'
"A form of social order necessitates some form a administration"
On this point I think we have universal consensus. Even the most laissez faire libertarian, and most inebriated chaos punk, demand the right to boot obnoxious people out of their home. This implies a social order (distinguishing between different people's private spaces) and a form of administration (of which the booting out is an example). But when you tack on the end...
"like a "state","
You are using an entirely different, and much broader, definition of 'state' than anarchists do. By your definition, a sports club is a state, so is a squatted social centre, so is a troop of baboons for that matter - they all have a "social order" and "some form of administration". Anarchists don't campaign against this kind of "state" for the same reason we don't campaign against gravity (even though it clearly supresses our autonomy ;)
When anarchist talk about "smashing the state" we are talking about something very specific - a social instrument which uses violence and/or the threat of violence to impose on a geographical population a "social order" designed by a minority, usually to serve their own best interests. In the hands of someone who consciously intends to benefit their own elite (the NatACTsis of evil for example), such a state becomes a uniquely repressive and anti-democratic instrument, even if it still goes through the motions of representative democracy (elections etc), a respectable national Mafia, charging the citizens protection money (tax) to protect them from bogies of their own creation (research shows that one of the things most likely to make people commit crime is having been in prison, add prohibition of drugs to get innocent people in there in the first place, and voila!)
A state designed by a minority with "progressive" goals might resemble a smothering nanny more than an Al Capone but it is still a dictatoship, Regardless of what good intentions a minority might have, nobody can design a social order for an entire society that does not benefit them more than it benefits anyone else, since nobody has full knowledge of everyone in the society's situation, values, aspirations etc
"Following links may just enhance the discussion, which I admit has gone a bit off course:"
Ah, the beauty of threaded discussions. You should have seen the tangents we used to go off on before we had the ability to respond directly to a particular comment, and had to just tack every reply onto the end of the thread ;)
Respect
Strypey
10 strong men.
Ok. If anarchists agree that people should have the right to boot someone out of their home, doesn't this imply some kind of property or quasi-property rights in that place?
If so, how will those rights be enforced? To it another way, imagine someone storming into your place with 10 very large, very strong, very mean friends. Without some kind of universally recognised and understood rights (currently embodied in property and criminal law in the form of property rights and the law on trespass) and a central enforcement authority (currently provided by the state in the form of the Police), how would you enforce your right to remove those persons from your home?