-
[QUOTE=Rojo;1087497]And "individualst society" is a bit of a contradiction. We've been social creatures since we started hunting in packs. It's the default human organizing principle.[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that everyone that works with another for their mutual benefit makes everyone in the group alike? (Assuming that you are considering the definition of "society" as a group of people that work together for their mutual benefit) You can cooperate with one another for each other's mutual benefit without being just like everyone in the group. Being an "individualist" means that I can like the color red, you can like blue, and we are both right; and yet we work together to build a wall for mutual protection, or kill an antelope for our mutual welfare.
-
[QUOTE=Rojo;1087497]Sure there is. Nobody doubts that. You can't just dump toxins in a river that runs through your property. You can't emit toxic fumes. There are zoning laws that prevent your neighbor from turning his property into a strip club.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. The Confederacy respected private property but enslaved millions.
Maybe it began as such for white men. Maybe. And "individualst society" is a bit of a contradiction. We've been social creatures since we started hunting in packs. It's the default human organizing principle.[/QUOTE]
Haha, your thinking is diseased. I truly hope you and your ilk end up with the government you deserve...it's looking favorable for you.
-
Good gods what have I started?
-
[QUOTE=Warmbear;1087852]Good gods what have I started?[/QUOTE]
No worries...
Nothing that hasn't been started here about 1000 times before.
These same cronies have at this same sort of conversation on a fairly regular basis, just a few of the players change out.
It's actually a bit tedious.
Watch for it again in a couple of months and see if I'm not telling the truth. ;)
-
[QUOTE=Warmbear;1087852]Good gods what have I started?[/QUOTE]
The trouble is, you incorrectly identified the 'right' side, or 'conservative' side of the political spectrum as 'taking away freedoms'. The true political spectrum identifies totalitarian government (Stalin [I]and[/I] Hitler) on the far left, and the [I]absence of government[/I] on the far right.
The irony is that most of the societal ills that leftists whine about are impossible without government meddling, and they prescribe more government meddling as the solution. This decay of circumstance is so gradual that people at large still think conservatism is the boogeyman while they inhabit a leftist society.
On this spectrum, George W. Bush and Vladimir Lenin-Obama are virtually identical, although the distinction of using drones to assassinate citizens without due process goes to the one slightly left...
-
I'm for anarchy. Personally I think all politics and government are shit. With everything we've learned from the PAST there is no good reason we can't evolve into something better.
-
[QUOTE=Nicator;1087872]The trouble is, you incorrectly identified the 'right' side, or 'conservative' side of the political spectrum as 'taking away freedoms'. The true political spectrum identifies totalitarian government (Stalin [I]and[/I] Hitler) on the far left, and the [I]absence of government[/I] on the far right.
The irony is that most of the societal ills that leftists whine about are impossible without government meddling, and they prescribe more government meddling as the solution. This decay of circumstance is so gradual that people at large still think conservatism is the boogeyman while they inhabit a leftist society.
On this spectrum, George W. Bush and Vladimir Lenin-Obama are virtually identical, although the distinction of using drones to assassinate citizens without due process goes to the one slightly left...[/QUOTE]
I agree that Dubya and Obama are pretty much the same, except that Obama is probably slightly worse, in my opinion, because he puts on a better facade (a very superficial one, but still).
But the one-dimensional political spectrum doesn't work well. I remember in high school, my government teacher drew this stupid 1-D spectrum where he put communists on the far left and fascists on the far right. He then placed liberals and conservatives next to the communists and fascists, respectively, and then he put libertarians in the middle! WTF, are libertarians the new moderates? Anyway, a better political spectrum would have at least two dimensions. An interesting one was set forth in this book: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Eight-Ways-Run-Country-Revealing/dp/0275993582]Amazon.com: Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right (9780275993580): Brian Patrick Mitchell: Books[/url]
One axis was kratos and the other was archy. The book contains some interesting analysis, and its 2-D spectrum definitely works better than the 1-D one (it's also better than the Nolan chart, which has economic liberty as one axis and personal liberty as the other). Anyway, you can read a summary of the archy-kratos spectrum here: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Mitchell:_Eight_Ways_to_Run_the_Country]Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Edit: I'm glad that exposure to the primal/paleo lifestyle is making people question other types of conventional thinking. Maybe there is still hope for humanity?
-
[QUOTE=whitebear;1087963]I'm for anarchy. Personally I think all politics and government are shit. With everything we've learned from the PAST there is no good reason we can't evolve into something better.[/QUOTE]
The problem with anarchy comes down to the cost of security.
In a totally cooperative society, security is a common burden. Individual security may still be needed but it tends to be pro forma. The lock on most houses aren't good for much more than show. The real security comes from the fact that someone caught defeating your lock will face stiffer penalties from whatever cooperative security exists. Likewise, the amount of food, money, etc. most people have saved will barely last from the time they lose their job until the cooperative unemployment benefits kick in. There is still an individual burden, but it is quite low.
In anarchy, the individual security burden increases. If you can't tell (by passing laws) your neighbors not to wander through your house taking whatever valuables they find, you must [i]prevent[/i] your neighbors from wandering though, and that means better locks, stronger walls, maybe not having windows on the first floor, having a wall around your property, and so on.
If we're talking about a post-scarcity society where individuals have robot overlor...err...minions and a share of near infinite asteroid-mined wealth, anarchy sounds great. Until that time anarchy will always mean your personal security is either more expensive or less comprehensive. That's a hard sell.
-
[QUOTE=Him;1088045]The problem with anarchy comes down to the cost of security.
In a totally cooperative society, security is a common burden. Individual security may still be needed but it tends to be pro forma. The lock on most houses aren't good for much more than show. The real security comes from the fact that someone caught defeating your lock will face stiffer penalties from whatever cooperative security exists. Likewise, the amount of food, money, etc. most people have saved will barely last from the time they lose their job until the cooperative unemployment benefits kick in. There is still an individual burden, but it is quite low.
In anarchy, the individual security burden increases. If you can't tell (by passing laws) your neighbors not to wander through your house taking whatever valuables they find, you must [i]prevent[/i] your neighbors from wandering though, and that means better locks, stronger walls, maybe not having windows on the first floor, having a wall around your property, and so on.
If we're talking about a post-scarcity society where individuals have robot overlor...err...minions and a share of near infinite asteroid-mined wealth, anarchy sounds great. Until that time anarchy will always mean your personal security is either more expensive or less comprehensive. That's a hard sell.[/QUOTE]
The way it is now we need security from our neighbors and from the collective or common. I know how nasty things would get if we all of a sudden had anarchy and honestly I'm not really prepared for that but I would gladly die protecting my own than continue life as blindfolded livestock. Die on your feet or live on your knees. I'm sick of living on my knees and I think a lot of other folks around the world are feeling this as well.
-
[quote]The problem with anarchy comes down to the cost of security.
In a totally cooperative society, security is a common burden. Individual security may still be needed but it tends to be pro forma. The lock on most houses aren't good for much more than show. The real security comes from the fact that someone caught defeating your lock will face stiffer penalties from whatever cooperative security exists. Likewise, the amount of food, money, etc. most people have saved will barely last from the time they lose their job until the cooperative unemployment benefits kick in. There is still an individual burden, but it is quite low.
In anarchy, the individual security burden increases. If you can't tell (by passing laws) your neighbors not to wander through your house taking whatever valuables they find, you must prevent your neighbors from wandering though, and that means better locks, stronger walls, maybe not having windows on the first floor, having a wall around your property, and so on.
If we're talking about a post-scarcity society where individuals have robot overlor...err...minions and a share of near infinite asteroid-mined wealth, anarchy sounds great. Until that time anarchy will always mean your personal security is either more expensive or less comprehensive. That's a hard sell. [/quote]
right now the security that you are talking about, (someone respecting the lock on my door) is rather expensive, because they "respect" this lock because of fear of the police.
Now the police station is about half a mile from my front door, and there, daily, meet and rally a dozen or so heavily armed men that I do not know, who maintain in writing and in public ritual in front of children a right to kill me in the street with impunity. Their people go through courts proclaiming that if I raise my hand to defend myself from them beating me, then I am guilty of assaulting the king's guard. They literally murder people without charge. And I have to consider these men and their movements when I leave my home.
That's way too expensive. I don't have anything that anyone might want to kill me to get- if they want to kick my door in and rob my shit, go for it. Probably my neighbors will see if I am not home, and I will find a trail.
Being responsible for your security is a [i]good[/i] thing that people get excited to be a part of. Lacking a feeling of responsibility for your safety leads to psychological problems, because you are neglecting an important dimension of human psychology to the determinent of the health of the whole being. Are you trying to tell me that men would generally NOT want to be involved in posse justice and neighborhood militia shit? I know few men who would not get a semi just hearing those words.
