At 8/29/11 03:22 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
At 8/27/11 11:11 AM, BritZombie wrote:
Monarchies suited very few people then, apart from the actual Monarchs and noblemen.I'd say they did. Education was practically non-existant back then, so asking a bunch of morons to rule themselves was just asking for trouble. By keeping power limited to as few people as possible those rulers could make decisions (not necessarily good ones) without fear of it blowing up in their face.
I disagree, education was expensive in a statist society, that's because of how power was structured. Power centralisations collectively tried very hard to stop the 'commoners' from becoming educated, even wanting to read the bible was punishable by death. If we see education as the knowledge acquired from past generations which is then expanded upon, that has always existed and if people remove other's right to such an education. Ancient Athens for example, was far more civilised and advanced than in my country a thousand years later, and it was by no means a perfect society, but it did have direct democracy and people have more of a say in the running of their lives than many of us do today. Because of this the basis , medicene, philosophy, court systems are still relevant today. Like I said, not a perfect society, but to suggest such huge flaws in feudalism only existed 'because it was hundreds of years ago' is to ignore examples such as Athens from 2,500 years ago.
People had terrible lives, in fact, despite all the medicinal, technological, lingustic progress etc, the average life span of a 14th century Englishmen was the same as one of the Iron Age.That life span would have been much lower if you expected everyone to rule themselves.
Us, humanity, the state, whatever you want to call it. The collective sample of society you want to make as glorious as possible.
I agree with that sentiment, but the state does no represent the interests of people nor the glory of anyone bar themselves.
So you're saying that a society which gives no-one power won't end that way?
All it requires is for someone to figure out that he can better himselves at the expense of others to round up a few like-minded indivduals to strong arm everyone into submission. With no centralised law system there will be nothing to stop him whatsoever. Sure there are no beacons of morality in our conventional hierarchy, but there will be even less in a world where the biggest jerk wins.
I'm not saying they would allow chaos to happen, I'm just saying they would be powerless to stop it.
Yes, I'm saying people without power over humans won't abuse said power because it's an impossibility. What do you mean 'figure out', you don't know about co-op syndicates work, if you did you'd see how silly that claim is. Our society today is where the 'biggest jerk' wins, especially in the business world who have huge power and fund huge proportions of elections, that's no secret is it?I've already told you at least twice something would stop him from 'doing it.'
Yes, but with no government no-one would be able to agree on what is good for the state. Thats why we try to have as few politicians as possible. Anymore and it would be several thousand people shouting to get their point across with no real progress.
They have and will (agree), I don't know why you keep making these comments. Having an equal right to dictate the conditions of your life and work is very clear progress and the notion that an organised system based on these principles would descend into chaos has been proven wrong.
Then you get a bunch of idiots who think they know whats good for them trying to be policy makers. Which usually never works.
Glass houses. Firstly, people are far more infantalised and 'dumbed-down' in a state which requires such things for it to work, that's prevalent through the system, do as your told, accept the status quo and you'll be alright. Secondly, what about a bunch of idiots who rule overs? Bankers gambling with money they didn't even earn on Canary Wharf plunging us into recession, bad decisions made by idiot leaders, you're aware they aren't our country's brightest minds right? And why not support dictators? If you believe that people are smart enough to chose their leaders because of their policies, why are they unable to decide on the policies? You're argument is the same as the fuedalists of yesteryear, just replace the word direct with representative.
I see, it all boils down to "The man is out to get me."
What a stupid attempt at an argument. No 'man' is out to get me, you're the state socialist. I pointed out some huge flaws in such a system and that's your answer.
No, I equate it with de-centralisation, and without centralisation there are no effective ways of enforcing laws. It's a symptom yes but not the main thing.
I'm getting deja vu.
Yet I'm going to go with the point I've used so far: Those societies don't exist anymore. If they don't exist they are not good for us.
Because dictatorships like the soviet union and fascist spain, respectively, were good for people? You're aware we only really started to advance in the renaissance right? When the teachings and knowledge of the ancient world come to light? You're notion of 'if it doesn't exist right now it's no good' is childish, anything which anyone could see was beneficial for both society and ourselves from the past must be 'no good' or if it's a goal for humans to reach it's 'too utopian'. Draw a line under everything now? Oh and explain the Renaissance.
What if he has a lot of followers and everyone is unable to stop him?
Are you serious? You just explained my opposition to statism.
Heirarchy is what got us out of the caves and into the cities. Without leaders we would be nothing.
No it didn't, and at best it was a neccesary evil which has long been illegitimate for modern society.
Did you just say Victorian England, the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, was a bad thing? Sure the citizens suffered, because they didn't know that it was good for them.
Also, Nazi Germany, Feudal and Slave societies all rose out of periods of anarchy... intredasting.
Oh, well fuck em, then. So they didn't know their suffering was actually good for them, oh I see. What a strange world-view. What periods of anarchy? The Wiemar republic pretty damn anarchist yeah? The slave trade happened because of egalitarian collectivist society yeah? How interesting, or should I say, 'interdasting'.
Still, some sort of agreement has got to be reached, and that will involve someones views being stomped on. Wait, so some people will have their views suppressed? This doesn't sound like the "everyone is equal" utopia you have been preaching thus far...
It sure does, and you have more of a say than now, that's for sure so I don't get what you mean. Also, any obligation to a confederation is self-assumed and that's what is emphasised in the committees. If you mean, someone's 'right to murder' the victim is the one who has his liberty infringed upon, not the murderer.
Happiness is relative. In a few decades they'll be happy that they aren't suffering power outages and starving to death when they have a government who has their back.
You mean the 50,000 people who ended up killed? You mean the economy that didn't improve for ten years and then got even worse? The country which was bankrupt by the late fifties? The economy that only improved when power was taken away from authoritarian ideologues? People DID starve to death in the mid 20th century Spain because of Franco you idiot, learn your history.
Small communes, no matter how many of them band together, cannot stop the war machine of a centralised state.
Did you read the bit when I argued against small communes and said it isn't based on such ideas? Also, why? You don't think numbers make a difference?
Once again, they don't exist. That's usually perfect proof of somethings inferior.