Senior Member
Yep. I used the phrase "totally cooperative society" but what we're living in is a totally codependent society. Quite different, though a lot of people can't seem to tell the difference.Originally Posted by whitebear
Most people aren't prepared for the costs of anarchy. They see the social approach as more efficient and they are right. The problem comes at the break-down of cooperation. Today your home is in a place with police, laws, order, and so on. Tomorrow it might not be. At that point, you will pay the cost of anarchy one way or another whether you like it or not. That's the risk you take with the cooperative approach. Unfortunately, it's an infrequent risk, vs. the constant cost of maintaining individual security. Over a lifetime, the cooperative approach (With infrequent breakdowns) will be less expensive for most people than the self-sufficient approach. That means it's very hard to convince them to spend the extra money, time, and inconvenience needed to support the infrastructure of anarchy.
Senior Member
Really this idea of "social costs" is just an illusion. Tax-payers work so much to pay taxes that they are not saving any time or money in acquiring government-provided security, an oxymoron that I'm sure makes any more intelligent poster here laugh at the sight of it.
"Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."
Jack london, "Before Adam"
Senior Member
I'm not sure. I think a lot of people don't respect the lock because they basically don't want to steal from you. It's a social contract perhaps, where we all agree that being stolen from sucks so we mostly agree not to be the cause of that suckage. Some people of course only fear the repercussions (police, armed homeowners, social stigma, etc), I have no idea what the ratio is, or what it can be.
Not sure what you mean. If you dress up in neon green spandex and put condoms over your ears there is definitely a social cost. There would also be laughter at the sight, but the laughter is not at the social cost.Really this idea of "social costs" is just an illusion. Tax-payers work so much to pay taxes that they are not saving any time or money in acquiring government-provided security, an oxymoron that I'm sure makes any more intelligent poster here laugh at the sight of it.
Last edited by Him; 02-08-2013 at 08:18 AM.
Senior Member
Well the people that do not want to rob me are not a problem and would not be without government either- in fact, people who respect me just because they are decent are generally punished and discouraged from helping me by government, and in a system without imposed laws, would offer me MORE assistance- they wouldn;t need licenses to help me with medicine, construction, child-birth, education, security, manufacturing, waste-removal, etc etc etc etc, whereas now, the State actively prohibits them from giving me aid in any of these arenas without first being designated as the one who gets to take money for these services.
"Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."
Jack london, "Before Adam"
Senior Member
This opens the door to too much manipulation and corruption and who said any thing about money? People have been fooled into giving up independence and responsibility. Yes, take care of me please so I can watch tv and not think. The security provided to us is actually a way to control us through the illusion of safety and freedom. I think the world would be a better place if people could really take care of themselves and not be so dependent on the system. The reality is that we are now slaves as most are now so dependent on the system that they could not survive without it. And they tell you you are free.Yep. I used the phrase "totally cooperative society" but what we're living in is a totally codependent society. Quite different, though a lot of people can't seem to tell the difference.
Most people aren't prepared for the costs of anarchy. They see the social approach as more efficient and they are right. The problem comes at the break-down of cooperation. Today your home is in a place with police, laws, order, and so on. Tomorrow it might not be. At that point, you will pay the cost of anarchy one way or another whether you like it or not. That's the risk you take with the cooperative approach. Unfortunately, it's an infrequent risk, vs. the constant cost of maintaining individual security. Over a lifetime, the cooperative approach (With infrequent breakdowns) will be less expensive for most people than the self-sufficient approach. That means it's very hard to convince them to spend the extra money, time, and inconvenience needed to support the infrastructure of anarchy.
Last edited by whitebear; 02-08-2013 at 08:23 AM.
Senior Member
That actually isn't an opinion- it's a scientific fact that can be verified by the measurable presence of chemical levels in the body that equate to strength, ascendency, contentment and physical and emotional health.
"Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."
Jack london, "Before Adam"
Senior Member
The phrase that was popular in my youth went like this: "No shit, Sherlock." Nowadays people seem to use the less scatological, "Thank you Captain Obvious!"
I'm not saying I like how the system works. I'm just saying why (I think) it is what it is. You've got to understand what drives a thing to be what it is if you want to change it.
Senior Member
it is a church of domination of human consciousness. The vulgar say "government."
"Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."
Jack london, "Before Adam"
Senior Member
From Nicator's context I was reading more to "individualist" than "different strokes for different folks". I saw it as everyone going it alone like homesteaders. I think this holds more appeal to Americans than a lot of other countries. We love the Jeremiah Johnson ideal. What's not to love. But I think it deserves some dy-mystification. The go-it-alone frontiersman was always mostly myth.
Senior Member
Why is this necessary?
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote