It might be good and wanted for some, but not by all, and those who don't want it, have to accept it!
And about your entire argument in the last post, you seem to be regarding Anarchism as flawed because people have not naturally evolved to accept it.
No, I am discarding it because it is in the human nature which will not evolve. I am disregarding it, because it cannot work in a society that has different opinions. It is very natural, as you say, in a self-contained robotic/pseudo-AI society, which shares similar objectives and does not have any deviations at all. The slightest deviation and the whole thing would crumble as a house of cards. Is this the type of evolution you refer to? So I say it again, people are not robots, and I want to believe () they will never evolve into robots.
Ronhrin wrote:
And only a small comment on why hasn't Anarchy naturally evolved, several studies have been made towards this end and no conclusive answer was ever found, the matter of the fact is that just because we don't fully understand the mechanics of past civilizations, doesn't carry any influence in modern civilization.
Really? What mechanics exactly do "we" not fully understand? Would like to see some of these studies, please. I have given you the answer why anarchy has not found its place throughout the ages, both here and in the previous discussion; you keep ignoring it, or convince yourself that there is no conclusive answer why. But then you call me religious.
Ronhrin wrote:
This is factual and logical, we can question ourselves about the nature of our past but this has nothing to do with our future.
To make decisions based on a hypothetical past that we don't understand is what religion does, not rational intelligent people such as ourselves!
Hypothetical past? Tucking your head in the sand and ignoring the past, which gives you a clear indication on the human society, in order to convince yourself of an impossible future is worse than religion, my friend.
Ronhrin wrote:
If we followed your line of reasoning, then we would go back to a Monarchic system, which certainly you will agree that is much more flawed and inhumane than current structure!
And yet, look at the capitalistic world we are at, and where that world is headed, with big business dictating interests of governments, this is exactly where we are heading. Perhaps not monarchy, but definitely towards a totalitarian regime. As I said, I am not sure a pure monarchy can even function at this day and age.
But no, looking at the past has no bearing on predicting the future at all.
Oh and to clear things up, these are not the types of governments I want or support.
I think the *idea* is great. Just as much as I love the *idea* of Marx's communism.
The problem, however, is that both ideas discount that everyone is different, and thus things just wouldn't work out the way the idea envisions things would work out.
As allready stated, in a world of anarchy, nothing is stopping people from getting together and re-forming large governments anyways.
The idea is filled with so many holes. You can't count on humans to all want, and do the same thing. What you can count on is complete chaos. While Anarchy may not equate to chaos; In reality, Anarchy would equate to a world of chaos quite fast due to people like me bashing your skull in to steal your supplies, and manipulating groups of people to do my bidding. A community of people who devote their time researching the next intel 100 core chip, or small groups of people that would have to be setup around the earth to upkeep the communications infastructure would be fucking raped and pillaged since they are devoting their time to stupid shit at that point. If you don't have big governments that keep humans under control with legislation, and a body of government to upkeep an inkling of justice - Things are going to get ugly fast.
Not everyone wants to research, and provide growth for humanity. Your average person is a fucking idiot that is easily manipulated by another large portion of the population that are naturally aggressive. (Who still control the world today. However, the world today at least allows room for a middle class to live a fairly decent life.)
I'm not saying the way we do things today is the 'best' way. What I am saying though, is that the way we do things today keeps decent control over shit, while still allowing room for growth.
People always forget how good we have things these days. Never before in history has such a large portion of the population been in the 'middle class'. Frankly, middle class life isn't bad. You can afford nice shit, and go do cool things with your time off.
Until we can be in a world like 'Star Trek' where material objects no longer have any meaning; Greed will always exsist. You will always have an 'upper class' that is the minority of the population.
Last edited by Mchart on Sun, 19th Sep 2010 17:36; edited 1 time in total
It might be good and wanted for some, but not by all, and those who don't want it, have to accept it!
And about your entire argument in the last post, you seem to be regarding Anarchism as flawed because people have not naturally evolved to accept it.
No, I am discarding it because it is in the human nature which will not evolve. I am disregarding it, because it cannot work in a society that has different opinions. It is very natural, as you say, in a self-contained robotic/pseudo-AI society, which shares similar objectives and does not have any deviations at all. The slightest deviation and the whole thing would crumble as a house of cards. Is this the type of evolution you refer to? So I say it again, people are not robots, and I want to believe () they will never evolve into robots.
Ronhrin wrote:
And only a small comment on why hasn't Anarchy naturally evolved, several studies have been made towards this end and no conclusive answer was ever found, the matter of the fact is that just because we don't fully understand the mechanics of past civilizations, doesn't carry any influence in modern civilization.
Really? What mechanics exactly do "we" not fully understand? Would like to see some of these studies, please. I have given you the answer why anarchy has not found its place throughout the ages, both here and in the previous discussion; you keep ignoring it, or convince yourself that there is no conclusive answer why. But then you call me religious.
Ronhrin wrote:
This is factual and logical, we can question ourselves about the nature of our past but this has nothing to do with our future.
To make decisions based on a hypothetical past that we don't understand is what religion does, not rational intelligent people such as ourselves!
Hypothetical past? Tucking your head in the sand and ignoring the past, which gives you a clear indication on the human society, in order to convince yourself of an impossible future is worse than religion, my friend.
Ronhrin wrote:
If we followed your line of reasoning, then we would go back to a Monarchic system, which certainly you will agree that is much more flawed and inhumane than current structure!
And yet, look at the capitalistic world we are at, and where that world is headed, with big business dictating interests of governments, this is exactly where we are heading. Perhaps not monarchy, but definitely towards a totalitarian regime. As I said, I am not sure a pure monarchy can even function at this day and age.
But no, looking at the past has no bearing on predicting the future at all.
Oh and to clear things up, these are not the types of governments I want or support.
When I mentioned hypothetical past I was referring to our lack of understanding of the mechanics as to why our ancestors accepted authority.
We have no specific idea of the large scale mechanics of the emergence of institutionalized power, but a very simplified assumption of what happened was the notion that authoritarian use of force and coercion was used by the enlighten few to begin controlling the uneducated masses, and everything grew and evolved from this very simple notion which is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
Society was much different back then, both in understanding of nature as in failing to oppose to power.
The bottom line is the following, you clearly understand where we're heading and you seem to oppose to it.
But the only reason we're headed in this direction is because we support representative statist and corporate solutions!
If democracy was design from the bottom-up perspective, instead of top-down perspective, corporate monopolies and governmental corruption would not exist!
Simply because all decisions were actively made by the people instead of a few corrupt business man.
People disagree all the time, we're disagreeing right now, and I still respect you and consider you as a great person (and I believe the sentiment is reciprocal), we will not subject ourselves to mutual hate and personal attacks.
I'm not discussing because I want to be right, I strongly accept the logical superiority of my standpoint simply because it is non contradictory as oppose to yours.
You seem to believe in mutual respect, and you oppose against the notion of autocracy.
Still the logic of your standpoint fails when you try to argue that is legitimate for someone to actively enforce a uniform coercive system to a entire population, and individuals who disagree with the nature of the establishement have to accept it unconditionally, otherwise, aggressive force will be used against them.
This is self contradictory, we cannot say that some power is good when if anything history has shown that since power is made and controlled by man, it can and will only be corrupt!
We do not oppose to power, we oppose to centralized power, there is a big difference between the two!
If we make a fundamental law within society that the amount of power each person has is completely uniform and unrelated to social economical status, hierarchic power will be naturally repealed!
People are averagely much more civilized, articulate and moral today than they were a mere 1000 years ago.
The reason why we aren't even more civilized is because of all the propaganda and incentive of hate towards anything that is different from us, and this propaganda comes from religion or the government, or even both combined!
You say that society would only work within anarchistic principle if people were emotionless robots.
And you fail to realize that this is exactly why the government will always fail!
If people with limited power can not be trusted (as you state), how do you justify that a group of people with absolute power can be trusted?
This is the flaw in the core of every statist system!
The state is still run by people, these people which are as human and as flawed as the regular citizen, cannot be expected to make perfect robot like decisions.
This is why, all decisions have to emerge from the core of society and be naturally accepted by the community or not.
They cannot be dictated by humans that are as flawed as ourselves!
Direct Social Democracy is therefore the only reasonable way to run society (and this falls within the spectrum of Anarchistic/Libertarian theory, because it opposes to central government)
Last edited by Ronhrin on Sun, 19th Sep 2010 17:41; edited 1 time in total
"People are averagely much more civilized, articulate and moral today than they were a mere 1000 years ago. "
lol.
No. They aren't.
This is what you don't understand. People really aren't any different from the way they were 2000 years ago. The same *problems* like greed, sloth, and people generally being assholes still exsist. If you were right, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because those problems would no longer exsist.
Absolutely *nothing* has changed, physically, in the minds of humans from thousands of years ago. Shit, we still have traits like ADHD, which has been suggested as something that cavemen used to have, as ADHD promotes more aggression, and aggression in a world of chaos like that is beneficial.
At least today the majority of the population doesn't get butt fucked by 1 monarch. However, if you remove all the social programs and everything else these days, that 1 monarch idea will come back fast and start butt fucking the majority of the population again.
"People are averagely much more civilized, articulate and moral today than they were a mere 1000 years ago. "
lol.
No. They aren't.
This is what you don't understand. People really aren't any different from the way they were 2000 years ago. The same *problems* like greed, sloth, and people generally being assholes still exsist.
At least today the majority of the population doesn't get butt fucked by 1 monarch. However, if you remove all the social programs and everything else these days, that 1 monarch idea will come back fast and start butt fucking the majority of the population again.
But this would only strenght my argument!
If people are all the same and the same problems are a constant, how can you reasonably accept that a limited group of people with absolute power over society to be trusted?
They are still as human as you and me!
The way monarchy claimed their right to rule was mainly through divine inspiration!
That is why people accepted it so blindly "if god choose this guy to be our king, we cannot go and question the will of god"
This was why Church and State were so related with each other.
If anything the existince of government promotes greed in the sense that you know you have a possibility to rise in hierarchy and rule over people, if such a notion is rendered obsolete, greed will still exist, of course, but it won't be feed by society itself!
The way monarchy claimed their right to rule was mainly through divine inspiration!
That is why people accepted it so blindly "if god choose this guy to be our king, we cannot go and question the will of god"
This was why Church and State were so related with each other.
If anything the existince of government promotes greed in the sense that you know you have a possibility to rise in hierarchy and rule over people, if such a notion is rendered obsolete, greed will still exist, of course, but it won't be feed by society itself!
You don't know your history very well. Monarchy is an evolution of the tribal chief concept, which predates any modern religion, or even before man was intelligent enough to invent religion. This is a mantra you keep repeating but you ought to do more research on human society evolution.
Anyway, you claim "it is non contradictory" and I have shown you many contradictions in the several posts I have made. Since I am getting very bored with the same arguments time and time again, this will be my last post here and you are welcome to continue believing in the "logical superiority".
The way monarchy claimed their right to rule was mainly through divine inspiration!
That is why people accepted it so blindly "if god choose this guy to be our king, we cannot go and question the will of god"
This was why Church and State were so related with each other.
If anything the existince of government promotes greed in the sense that you know you have a possibility to rise in hierarchy and rule over people, if such a notion is rendered obsolete, greed will still exist, of course, but it won't be feed by society itself!
You don't know your history very well. Monarchy is an evolution of the tribal chief concept, which predates any modern religion, or even before man was intelligent enough to invent religion. This is a mantra you keep repeating but you ought to do more research on human society evolution.
Anyway, you claim "it is non contradictory" and I have shown you many contradictions in the several posts I have made. Since I am getting very bored with the same arguments time and time again, this will be my last post here and you are welcome to continue believing in the "logical superiority".
I do know my history, and what you are replying isn't relevant to what is being discussed, the principle is still the same in theory, intellectual predation over the less educated masses.
You did made a few good points, land ownership to give you a example, I answered you about this and you haven't brought this subject again, either because you understand my point or because you disagree and don't want to bother discuss it further.
The fact is that your denial for libertarian solutions is heavily based on historic examples, that need to be considered under a specific context, either way, there are as easily countless historic arguments against representative power.
Again, you also seem to be opposed with the current structure of society, this discussion was about the anarchist proposition of direct social democracy and the mechanics of such a system.
You are unwilling to discuss the complex mechanics of social interactions within such system, I did my best in addressing the issues and questions you did brought up.
If you don't want to have a in depth conversation, I certainly respect that, but just because you choose to leave this discussion on current standing, doesn't leave you on the high ground.
I openly accept that ultimately this system could be flawed, but nothing that was discussed on this thread or any other where I have participated about this issue revealed a flaw within this system.
If there is a flaw with it, it is yet to be discovered, which any reasonably and humble intellectual accepts as always being a possibility.
The mere fact that such flaw, if existent, remains undiscovered, proves that this is a much more reasonable system of organization than the one we are currently under.
If you wish to resume this discussion anytime on the future, I'm always available!
Have you started on some new diet/vitamin supplemental program lately Ronhrin? You've been in a hyper-debate mood for a week now.
No, I just feel that certain issues need to be properly debated.
If anything I have gone through a phase of personal enlightnment, since I'm currently not needing to maintain my IM campaigns I have been spending the last few months, researching, reading and theorizing about the most different subjects.
And I have come up with some conclusions that I feel ought to be shared and discussed, mainly because public perception about such issues is ridiculously distorted.
No it's not, Democracy fundamentally takes the freedoms from minorities!
yes its true in democracy the powerfull interfere in the life of the minorities
also democracy as we want to believe that must be its not
because not always the majority express the minorities opinions
so will never be a true democracy,now its a the best solution for keeping the balancing
between classes but always the scale will lean in the powerfull side
so democracy and capitalism is the what you call paradox
Last edited by psychokillergr on Sun, 19th Sep 2010 20:16; edited 1 time in total
No it's not, Democracy fundamentally takes the freedoms from minorities!
yes its true in democracy the powerfull interfere in the life of the the minorities
also democracy as we want to believe that must be its not
because not always the majority express the minorities opinions
so will never be a true democracy,now its a the best solution for keeping the balancing
between classes but always the scale will lean in the powerfull side
so democracy and capitalism is the what you call paradox
Read more on my posts about direct democracy, or alternatively watch this video.
And I have come up with some conclusions that I feel ought to be shared and discussed, mainly because public perception about such issues is ridiculously distorted.
I appreciate your thoughts on logic and anarchy. Feel free to share your IM methods also
Private property still exists on anarchistic systems, what you don't have is monopolies
Anyway, without being to opened about the niches I work with, I can show you extremely simple ways of bringing some $1000+ a month revenue!
But perhaps you would be better of reading the opinions and ideas of other and forming your own consensus on what would you prefer to do.
I'm actually quite lazy on my IM ventures.
I know people making in a week more than what I make in a month.
There's a company in which I'm an affiliate, where other affiliate has been making $15.000+ per day consistently during the last 60 days.
You can find all information and ideas you will ever need to form your own business on both these forums!
blackhatworld used to be the best IM forum online, but now it's highly censored and the Admins are assholes. (that's what always happens when you have centralized power )
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) they will never evolve into robots.
