Not true. Some do that. But definetely not all....
Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
TruthSeeker said:
Did any of those anarchies work, or were they all displaced or destroyed by humans that were better organized?
Anarchy is simply not sustainable in the presence of organization. Which humans seem to do naturally, then take over (or simply take from) those who lack the organization to resist.
Anarchy seems to let maybe 100 to 300 people live together, then it becomes structurally unstable. I know of no anarchic, stable society that has as many individuals as a small town.
Government systems that allow for better structural stability, ie, those with central control, law enforcement, etc, get much larger and more powerful, in every case.
Anarchy has never worked, and cannot work simply because there is no solid concrete set of rules. Furthermore, most of these tribes can barely read or do math. They simply spend most of their time running around the forest naked looking for food etc. No time for actual intellectual/personal development. Too busy scrubing flies off of the body and worms out of the teeth.
You mean primitive barbaric humans?Roman said:
True. But if we find out why, we can expand on it.
I'm not debating whether it is much larger and powerful. I'm debating whether it is beneficial to us.
So... that's bad?cool skill said:
TruthSeeker said:
You mean the people we're identical to?
The only reason we're not primitive and backwards is because of two things:
1) structured societies
2) capitalism
You don't get it. Anarchy only works with small groups. It is fundamentally flawed for expanding to larger groups. Structurally unstable.
Right.
But if there are other societies that are larger and more powerful, what do you think they're going to do about your little backwards tribe? Just let you be? History shows that this is not the case.
I fail to see the problem. Care to enlighten me?cool skill said:
Huuumm... isn't the US the most structured society and the most capitalist one? And yet you have the highest prison population per capita on the planet. I fail to see how your society is NOT barbaric.Roman said:
And I haven't even mentioned what the US did througohut the world, throughout its history....
No, you don't get it. It's a matter of logistics. We didn't have that early in the history of our civilization. Now we do. So we might as well return to the most peaceful form of government ever create- the lack of the same.
I'm talking about human society- mankind. Not your little barbaric civilization.
Oh! So it's all working out really well, eh?
How civilized of you...
How civilized of you...
Capitalism works. So does Feudalism. Slavery was adequate to sustain Ancient Egypt, and build the pyramids and monoliths.
TruthSeeker said:
What's that have to do with anything?
Yeah. America continues to kick ass, especially against backwards tribes of people who have stuff we want. This is how it is and how it will be. A stronger group takes from a less strong group. Capitalism seems to have created the strongest groups.
No, you don't get it. It's a matter of logistics. An anarchic state lacks the capability to organize. If you could somehow prevent total chaos and your own people from establishing a dictatorship, then you'd be faced with a bigger, stronger, better organized state.
Oh, so let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Typical Truthseeker bullshit. You're idly dreaming about things that cannot be. Your solutions to problems suck. I see why you want to be a bean counter.
Roman, you are very, very barbaric. And it seems so is your people...
Again, I fail to see what is bad about what you pointed out.... :m:cool skill said:
Very pertinent indeed...
:m:
:m:
What is about not having concrete definitions as opposed to implied nonsense?TruthSeeker said:
Because when you do not clearly define what the law is, and clearly express the consequences, the result is pure unadulterated injustice.
Is this functional? Anything can be defined as functional.
Let's use parents and kids as an example.
1. Kid does something wrong, the parent comes up with a random punishment based on what the parent feels at the time.
2. Parent defines what is wrong in advance. And the consequences. The child commits the violation. The parent is consistent with the rules with no wishy washy actions.
#1 is is a ticket to disfuntional. #2 is a ticket to well functional.
Nobody wants to live in anarchy. Rules must be laid out in concrete, and enforced consistently and equally for all. Implied rules is nothing short of a formula for inconsistency. Implied rules concoct implied violations, inequality, injustice, and total bs that must never be imposed on a child or adult.
I don't think you understand what implied rules are. It's very simple. If you harm someone, the whole society loses. So don't harm anyone. Law should be common sense. Ever heard of "common law"?