If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos   (cnn.com) divider line 79
    More: Unlikely, law enforcement officials, critical infrastructure  
•       •       •

1226 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Aug 2012 at 9:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-23 01:46:32 PM

BeesNuts: liam76: RanDomino: Bloody William
It sounds like sociological primordial soup that waits for collectivism to congeal when necessary.

hm kind of. People naturally form small and generally non-hierarchical groups and communities, in absence of outside coercion. Anarchism as a philosophy/worldview is necessary to ensure they act in solidarity to support each other, so the small % of the population that's sociopaths isn't able to use intimidation and fear to play people against each other and gain power. If you can understand the concept that we have to support each other's freedom in order to ensure our own then that's basically Anarchism.

haha, ok.

Missed a spot. John Rawles frowns on your shenanigans.


No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.
 
2012-08-23 03:16:37 PM

Highroller48: Blue_Blazer: So subby thinks that anarchists = Nazis. I wonder what else subby is wrong about.

Oh, my. Epic Fail of the week? Possibly.

I mean, I'm not immune from missing the occasional joke in a headline and putting my foot in my mouth, but this is up there with the best of them. Your account is 2-1/2 years old, so there's just no excuse.

/The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh. I sure hope he makes the finals.


A misleading headline? On Fark? Lawdy lawd, what will we do?
 
2012-08-23 03:17:49 PM
/Only, ya know, quoting that other guy with the inappropriately dressy for this audience ensemble.
 
2012-08-23 09:21:46 PM
Willas Tyrell
No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.

Anyone who has a group of friends or gets together with their family at holidays should recognize this.
 
2012-08-24 08:12:48 AM

RanDomino: Willas Tyrell
No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.

Anyone who has a group of friends or gets together with their family at holidays should recognize this.


What is the outside coercion that cause primative tribes to have hierarchical groups?
 
2012-08-24 08:41:07 AM

liam76: RanDomino: Willas Tyrell
No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.

Anyone who has a group of friends or gets together with their family at holidays should recognize this.

What is the outside coercion that cause primative tribes to have hierarchical groups?


They didn't. Until there were other groups who were vying for food in the same region. Hunter Gatherer Bands are understood to have been egalitarian. Chiefdoms came to exist as a response to offensive pressure by their neighbors. I really don't feel like giving an anthro lecture.
 
2012-08-24 08:43:26 AM

Willas Tyrell: absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context)


Read Theory of Justice. In this context it's the Veil of Ignorance. Colloquially, the example you might have heard is two children have a cake to split. The fairest way to do so is for one child to cut the cake while the other chooses his piece first.
 
2012-08-24 08:53:28 AM

BeesNuts: liam76: RanDomino: Willas Tyrell
No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.

Anyone who has a group of friends or gets together with their family at holidays should recognize this.

What is the outside coercion that cause primative tribes to have hierarchical groups?

They didn't. Until there were other groups who were vying for food in the same region. Hunter Gatherer Bands are understood to have been egalitarian. Chiefdoms came to exist as a response to offensive pressure by their neighbors. I really don't feel like giving an anthro lecture.


Not having a chief doesn't mean you were egalitarian, and we were talking about hierarchical groups. Hunter gatherers societies had generally had strict roles for women and men, elders had more power, etc. They had a heiarchial society. They could be looked at as "egalitarian" as power wasn't generally inhereted, but that wasn't what we were discussing.
 
2012-08-24 08:59:03 AM

liam76: BeesNuts: liam76: RanDomino: Willas Tyrell
No, I think "haha, ok" is the right response to the suggestion that on absent "outside coercion" (whatever that means is this context) humans naturally form non-hierarchical groups.

Anyone who has a group of friends or gets together with their family at holidays should recognize this.

What is the outside coercion that cause primative tribes to have hierarchical groups?

They didn't. Until there were other groups who were vying for food in the same region. Hunter Gatherer Bands are understood to have been egalitarian. Chiefdoms came to exist as a response to offensive pressure by their neighbors. I really don't feel like giving an anthro lecture.

Not having a chief doesn't mean you were egalitarian, and we were talking about hierarchical groups. Hunter gatherers societies had generally had strict roles for women and men, elders had more power, etc. They had a heiarchial society. They could be looked at as "egalitarian" as power wasn't generally inhereted, but that wasn't what we were discussing.


Defined Roles isn't a characteristic of a heirarchy.

I'm not going to dance this dance though. Liam's moving-target shooting gallery isn't a fun way to spend a morning.

Read this. It might make you less of an aggressively cynical contrarian.
 
2012-08-24 09:15:43 AM

BeesNuts: Defined Roles isn't a characteristic of a heirarchy.


Yes it is. Unless they have defined roles then their "rank" or "place" in the heirachy is meaningless.


BeesNuts: I'm not going to dance this dance though. Liam's moving-target shooting gallery isn't a fun way to spend a morning.


Moving target? I am not the one who went from heirachy to egalitarian. And glossed over the fact that egalitarian, when describing hunter-gahterers doesn't really fit the definition used by people on societies today. Nobody would call a society where your sex determined what your job could be as "egalitarian".


BeesNuts: Read this. It might make you less of an aggressively cynical contrarian


I wish I had a book to help you out, not sure where to start though.
 
2012-08-24 11:13:57 AM
Yes it is. Unless they have defined roles then their "rank" or "place" in the heirachy is meaningless.

I think you missed the intent of the statement - defining roles and dividing tasks does not necessarily require a power hierarchy, though for various reasons the latter ends up being grafted upon the former.

I have my own problems with the overly whimsical view of prehistoric and preindustrial social organizations communicated by some of my fellow anarchists, but I also think tradition is a piss-poor reason to continue perpetuating a corrosive set of rules and structures. Informal human groups tend to be more or less nonhierarchical. Formalization and institution of hierarchy tends to be the activity of power junkies, control freaks, and people who would have been alphas in an earlier time. The desire for power over others is dangerous.
 
2012-08-24 12:42:11 PM

PlatinumDragon: I think you missed the intent of the statement - defining roles and dividing tasks does not necessarily require a power hierarchy, though for various reasons the latter ends up being grafted upon the former.


When you are assigning them based on sex, I would disagree.


PlatinumDragon: I have my own problems with the overly whimsical view of prehistoric and preindustrial social organizations communicated by some of my fellow anarchists, but I also think tradition is a piss-poor reason to continue perpetuating a corrosive set of rules and structures.


I agree that tradition as a reason is stupid, but no system I have seen advocated by "anarchists" woudl work better.

Informal human groups tend to be more or less nonhierarchical. Formalization and institution of hierarchy tends to be the activity of power junkies, control freaks, and people who would have been alphas in an earlier time. The desire for power over others is dangerous

Formalization and institution of hierarchy is required for any complex task.
 
2012-08-24 02:41:36 PM
liam76
I wish I had a book to help you out, not sure where to start though.

Let me guess- "Leviathan"?

Formalization and institution of hierarchy is required for any complex task.

Oh, you're right; I guess no one has any reason to be an anarchist. All of these examples of successful non-hierarchically-organized projects I've been part of have just been hallucinations. And the ones in the historical record are probably just clever fabrications. The theory behind it is obviously wrong, because you say so.
 
2012-08-24 04:56:49 PM

RanDomino: Formalization and institution of hierarchy is required for any complex task.

Oh, you're right; I guess no one has any reason to be an anarchist.


Get back at their parents? Haven't thought their political philosophy through all the way? I can think of lots of reasons, but no good ones.


All of these examples of successful non-hierarchically-organized projects I've been part of have just been hallucinations. And the ones in the historical record are probably just clever fabrications. The theory behind it is obviously wrong, because you say so

Hard to argue with such a comprehensive list of examples...wait there were none.

But all those historical examples are a pretty strong argument, oh yeah you listed none of those either.

It is wrong because without a formalized hierarchy an egalitarian group would require a vote at every step of the way. For a complex task you aren't going to get anything done if you have to stop every 10 minutes to debate then vote on how to do things.
 
2012-08-24 06:21:11 PM
liam76
Hard to argue with such a comprehensive list of examples...wait there were none.
But all those historical examples are a pretty strong argument, oh yeah you listed none of those either.


I know you've seen me spell them out before and I'm not going to repeat myself for your amusement.

It is wrong because without a formalized hierarchy an egalitarian group would require a vote at every step of the way. For a complex task you aren't going to get anything done if you have to stop every 10 minutes to debate then vote on how to do things.

You trade speed in decision-making for certainty and accuracy. You don't get this phenomenon of bureaucrats inventing bullshiat work to prove themselves to their boss in an anarchist system. When decisions are made directly, the people who have the most day-to-day knowledge are the ones with the most input. Resources are allocated based on how they're actually needed rather than the selfishness or monomania of some leader. Yes, checking for consent needs to be done frequently; but that's a feature, not a bug.
 
2012-08-24 07:54:50 PM

RanDomino: liam76
Hard to argue with such a comprehensive list of examples...wait there were none.
But all those historical examples are a pretty strong argument, oh yeah you listed none of those either.

I know you've seen me spell them out before and I'm not going to repeat myself for your amusement.


No you are just going to alluding to all your past examples and historical records, and then respond when challenged that you have listed them before, for my amusement.

RanDomino: It is wrong because without a formalized hierarchy an egalitarian group would require a vote at every step of the way. For a complex task you aren't going to get anything done if you have to stop every 10 minutes to debate then vote on how to do things.

You trade speed in decision-making for certainty and accuracy.


We are talking about complex tasks. Certainly and accuracy are not achieved by pretending everyone has the same decision making skills in a complex task. Certainty and accuracy is achieved by selecting the leader who understand the task the best (or at least better than the average joe).

RanDomino: You don't get this phenomenon of bureaucrats inventing bullshiat work to prove themselves to their boss in an anarchist system.


No you get this phenomenon of morons who don't understand the issue clouding things up.


RanDomino: When decisions are made directly, the people who have the most day-to-day knowledge are the ones with the most input.


Well first off "day to day" knowledge in many cases doesn't make you most qualified.

Secondly what you are describing is an institution of hierarchy.

You don't get this phenomenon of bureaucrats inventing bullshiat work to prove themselves to their boss in an anarchist system. When decisions are made directly, the people who have the most day-to-day knowledge are the ones with the most input. Resources are allocated based on how they're actually needed rather than the selfishness or monomania of some leader. Yes, checking for consent needs to be done frequently; but that's a feature, not a bug
 
2012-08-24 11:55:23 PM
liam76
Certainly and accuracy are not achieved by pretending everyone has the same decision making skills in a complex task.

Complex tasks are made up of many small tasks. That's what "complex" means. You don't need everyone to be able to make all the decisions. Duh?

Secondly what you are describing is an institution of hierarchy.

ffs if that's hierarchy then wtf wouldn't be?
 
2012-08-25 05:59:08 AM

RanDomino: liam76
Certainly and accuracy are not achieved by pretending everyone has the same decision making skills in a complex task.

Complex tasks are made up of many small tasks. That's what "complex" means. You don't need everyone to be able to make all the decisions. Duh?


So you are going to pic someone to make all the decisions? That goes against your earlier claim that about "decisions being made directly".



RanDomino: ffs if that's hierarchy then wtf wouldn't be?


One in which everyone had an equal say in all decisions. Which is what you described earlier (and falls more in with direct democracy than anarchism). If you are electing a group you think is most qualified to make decisions that isn't anarchy. Once you say group X (or whatever you want to call the group that makes the decisions) it is no longer non-hierarchical.


Still waiting on all those examples of complex tasks done by anarchists.
 
2012-08-25 02:57:15 PM
liam76
So you are going to pic someone to make all the decisions? That goes against your earlier claim that about "decisions being made directly".

Each small group has a specific task which they are specialized to handle. They send delegates to a meeting between all the small groups to coordinate. Decisions made through consensus (delegates only report decisions of the group they're from, rather than make decisions like representatives do). For tasks that are more complicated, additional layers of delegation. Entire sectors of the economy could be run on just three or four levels of delegation (working groups -> firms -> regional -> continental). This is basically how CLASSE in Quebec operates and they've been on strike for months with regular turnouts at rallies of over two hundred thousand people.

One in which everyone had an equal say in all decisions.

Even ones which don't actually affect them? We expect people who don't have a dog in the race to shut up (unless they have some information to contribute), and their consent is not required for a decision to be executed.

Anarchists take "hierarchy" to mean something more like "chain of command" than whatever you're talking about.
 
2012-08-25 03:54:32 PM

RanDomino: Each small group has a specific task which they are specialized to handle.


Who decides if they are "specialized"? Once you say guy can do it and buy b can't you have set up a hierarchy.


RanDomino: They send delegates to a meeting between all the small groups to coordinate. Decisions made through consensus (delegates only report decisions of the group they're from, rather than make decisions like representatives do).


If no decision is made until you have "consensus" then it only takes one person to say "no" to keep from ever moving forward, unless you mean majority decision.

If they are only "reporting decisions" that means that each small group has to be informed of every decisions allowing them to provide input to their delegate.

RanDomino: For tasks that are more complicated, additional layers of delegation.


Which will take even longer to reach a decision.

RanDomino: Even ones which don't actually affect them? We expect people who don't have a dog in the race to shut up (unless they have some information to contribute), and their consent is not required for a decision to be executed.


Who makes that call? Seems you would need to empower a person or a group to decide if they "have a dog in the fight"


RanDomino: Anarchists take "hierarchy" to mean something more like "chain of command" than whatever you're talking about


Once again unless everyone has a say in every vote then there is a chain of command.

The person or group making the call if you have a"dog int he fight" would be up there int he chain of command. The person deemed to have "specialized" skills when it comes to something important would be higher up in the chain of command than somebody who didn't.

What happens in your ideal anarchist society when a crime has been committed what happens(need a chain of command to deal with it)? How do you deal with someone who doesn't come to work (need a chain of command and a bureaucracy to deal with)?

And you still can't point to a single complicated task they have done.
 
2012-08-25 04:02:07 PM

liam76: Who decides if they are "specialized"? Once you say guy a can do it and buy b can't you have set up a hierarchy.


DOH!

liam76: How do you deal with someone who doesn't come to work (need a chain of command and a bureaucracy to deal with)?


If you are going to answer "shunned" or no food or shelter, how would you prevent someone who was just unpopular from this happening to without a system of appeals?

What stops them from just moving?
 
2012-08-25 05:18:30 PM
liam76
Who decides if they are "specialized"?

Whoever is considering working with them. If they trust them and think they're qualified, work with them. If not, don't.

If no decision is made until you have "consensus" then it only takes one person to say "no" to keep from ever moving forward, unless you mean majority decision.

That's called a 'Block' and the result is supposed to be that the group splits up. That can mean that the one person who blocked gets kicked out, if everyone else thinks they blocked for a stupid reason. Generally these are considered differences of opinion and handled amiably, not hostilely (resulting, for example, in the relative camaraderie of different anarchist groups and tendencies even given tremendous ideological differences, as opposed to the extremely hostile and destructive splits Marxist groups have over petty bullshiat).

If they are only "reporting decisions" that means that each small group has to be informed of every decisions allowing them to provide input to their delegate.

Yes, the delegate reports back.

Which will take even longer to reach a decision.

Do you want to take things fast and loose or do it right?

Who makes that call? Seems you would need to empower a person or a group to decide if they "have a dog in the fight"

Each person/group decides if they should be involved. Each other person/group who's involved decides if they should be allowed to be involved. It works better than you expect because it's something people have good intuition for.

What happens in your ideal anarchist society when a crime has been committed what happens(need a chain of command to deal with it)? How do you deal with someone who doesn't come to work (need a chain of command and a bureaucracy to deal with)?

Shunning and self-defense.

If you are going to answer "shunned" or no food or shelter, how would you prevent someone who was just unpopular from this happening to without a system of appeals?

Keep in mind that this has to be coupled with a gift-based economy (which is inevitable given the impossibility of capitalism without a State to maintain it). So "shunning" really means "don't give them anything". To whom would a person appeal to force someone else to give them products or services? If a person doesn't like you, sorry, but they're their highest authority.

What stops them from just moving?

Move to where? If they have friends somewhere else, fine, good for them. If they don't, then it's unlikely that anyone's going to do much for some random stranger.

And you still can't point to a single complicated task they have done.

Fine, here's a simple example
Surely you'll admit that's pretty farking complicated.
 
2012-08-25 06:14:51 PM

RanDomino: Whoever is considering working with them. If they trust them and think they're qualified, work with them. If not, don't.


You said each group has a specialized task. At some point somebody or group must have decided they are qualified for that specialized task.


RanDomino: That's called a 'Block' and the result is supposed to be that the group splits up. That can mean that the one person who blocked gets kicked out, if everyone else thinks they blocked for a stupid reason. Generally these are considered differences of opinion and handled amiably, not hostilely (resulting, for example, in the relative camaraderie of different anarchist groups and tendencies even given tremendous ideological differences, as opposed to the extremely hostile and destructive splits Marxist groups have over petty bullshiat).


A block resulting you getting kicked out if you are working on your next cool OWS protest, as a system of govt it completely fails.

Keep going in your dreamland that there won't be hostility.


RanDomino: Yes, the delegate reports back.


So no complicated decision or compromise can be made in a timely manner. And once again people who don't know anything about, for instance, helicopter design, will have a vote in how to build one.


RanDomino: Do you want to take things fast and loose or do it right?


Direct democracy where the minority gets kicked out (which you have described thus far) doesn't come up with the "right decision".


RanDomino: Each person/group decides if they should be involved. Each other person/group who's involved decides if they should be allowed to be involved. It works better than you expect because it's something people have good intuition for.


You expect it works because you are hopelessly naive or have no idea what goes into any truly complicated process.


RanDomino: Shunning and self-defense.


You assume you know who committed the crime. Who are you going to shun if there was a murder in your anarchist community.


RanDomino: Keep in mind that this has to be coupled with a gift-based economy (which is inevitable given the impossibility of capitalism without a State to maintain it). So "shunning" really means "don't give them anything". To whom would a person appeal to force someone else to give them products or services? If a person doesn't like you, sorry, but they're their highest authority.


So how do you know if the guy just wanted to move or if he was shunned? For this to work you would need a system to track everyone who was shunned, or maintain a shunned list, which once again requires a hierarchy.


RanDomino: Move to where? If they have friends somewhere else, fine, good for them. If they don't, then it's unlikely that anyone's going to do much for some random stranger.


So if I was in your local collective, and killed you, the rest of the people in the group would say, well he has left to hang with other friends so, good on him?

What if I didn't have friends, but committed no crimes and just decided to travel. How would I accomplish that in your ideal world? Since strangers aren't given the benefit of the doubt, trade would be pretty farking rough, and there would be no reason not to rip off random travelers.



RanDomino: Surely you'll admit that's pretty farking complicated


It is a poster. Busy, yes. Has a lot going on, yes. Not really complicated. I am talking along the lines of a computer, modern medical equipment, a helicopter, an electrical grid, solar cells, refrigerators, etc


Your ideas for how society should work are hopelessly naive and demonstrate you have no idea what goes into the modern comforts you enjoy. Par for the course for anarchists.
 
2012-08-25 09:46:27 PM
liam76
You said each group has a specialized task. At some point somebody or group must have decided they are qualified for that specialized task.

As I said, they consider themselves qualified, and the people who depend on them to be qualified either agree or disagree. If they disagree, they refuse to work with them.

A block resulting you getting kicked out if you are working on your next cool OWS protest, as a system of govt it completely fails.

Duh?

So no complicated decision or compromise can be made in a timely manner.

Depends on what kind of timeframe is necessary. Not everything needs to be a snap decision. If necessary, it is possible to agree to allow someone to make a snap decision, but that's extremely rare and every effort is made to avoid it. But we still call the Makhnovshchina and CNT militias anarchist even though they had military commanders (the difference being that their commanders were elected, and participation was voluntary- and it took repeated betrayals to defeat them rather than military prowess).

And once again people who don't know anything about, for instance, helicopter design, will have a vote in how to build one.

No, they won't, if the people who are actually designing and building the helicopter decide not to listen to them.

You expect it works because you are hopelessly naive or have no idea what goes into any truly complicated process.

If human beings are qualified to conduct job interviews then they're certainly qualified to handle this.

So how do you know if the guy just wanted to move or if he was shunned? For this to work you would need a system to track everyone who was shunned, or maintain a shunned list, which once again requires a hierarchy.

If some random stranger suddenly shows up, they should be regarded with skepticism. Would you let someone become a full member of your community immediately if you know nothing about them? If they say they intend to stay but don't want to tell you anything about their history, their credibility is nil. If they do tell you about where they came from, you can investigate, probably just by asking someone who knows someone in the area who can ask about them. There's pretty much no good reason why people move to a place where they don't know anybody. This is an extremely solvable situation.

So if I was in your local collective, and killed you, the rest of the people in the group would say, well he has left to hang with other friends so, good on him?

There are generally reasons behind murder, so I reject your hypothetical situation.

What if I didn't have friends, but committed no crimes and just decided to travel. How would I accomplish that in your ideal world? Since strangers aren't given the benefit of the doubt

You have friends, or a community, or something. A chain of references also works (starting with someone you know who knows someone where you're going, then that person knows someone in the next place where you're going, and so on. If necessary, it can be traced back to exactly who farked up, and that person's recommendations are no longer trustworthy as their credibility takes a hit).

Even if not, people are generally somewhat hospitable toward strangers; especially ones that seem harmless. It's a stain on a person's/community's honor if harm comes to a traveler in their vicinity, and an enhancement to their honor to have guests- both to showcase their accomplishments and to prove that they're well-off and successful enough to be charitable. Practically every indigenous culture (including pre-modern civilized cultures, and modern civilized cultures to a lesser extent although a lot of damage has been done to it by capitalism) has something like this principle, and strong mores enforcing it.

trade would be pretty farking rough,

Again, gift economy.

and there would be no reason not to rip off random travelers.

Except basic human decency.

I am talking along the lines of a computer, modern medical equipment, a helicopter, an electrical grid, solar cells, refrigerators, etc

Sorry that art, music, food, philosophy, and housing are the things we value most.
 
2012-08-25 10:22:47 PM

RanDomino: As I said, they consider themselves qualified, and the people who depend on them to be qualified either agree or disagree. If they disagree, they refuse to work with them.


So every single person who depends on them gets to weigh in on a vote to determine if every singler person on that task is qualified?


RanDomino: Duh?


Yeah that is right, I forgot, anarchists don't like the system of govt they propose called a system of govt.

RanDomino: No, they won't, if the people who are actually designing and building the helicopter decide not to listen to them.


IN your system how do those people get the resources to build it?

RanDomino: If human beings are qualified to conduct job interviews then they're certainly qualified to handle this.


No. Interview process isn't done through direct democracy (which is once again what you have described, with the ability to boot anyone who disagrees out). It is done through a system of hierarchy and bureaucracy.

RanDomino: There are generally reasons behind murder, so I reject your hypothetical situation.


Somehow your system will solve "greed"? Yes we can't take money because ti will be based on "gifting", but unless there is some central database of every single item everyone owns greed is still a good reason.

Also your system also eliminates love triangles, every murder situation where more than one person wants to kill the same person?

Even a 12 yr old studying govt would start to see the problems with your philosophy now...

RanDomino: Again, gift economy.


So you are flat out against anybody seeing more than two continents in their twenties and being able to start a family, or is your head so far up your ass you don't realize how difficult that woudl be with a "gift economy"?


RanDomino: Except basic human decency.


Human decency in fascism would have prevented the holocaust. human decency in communism would have prevented the purges in Russia and China. Human decency isn't common.

RanDomino: I am talking along the lines of a computer, modern medical equipment, a helicopter, an electrical grid, solar cells, refrigerators, etc

Sorry that art, music, food, philosophy, and housing are the things we value most


How much art, music, food, and philosophy have you been exposed to that wasn't through what I listed or from people who used what I listed?

As far as housing, good luck with housing with none of the above that I listed. I am guessing you have never spent a night in a place you built for yourself, much less built for yourself without the benefit of modern technology.

Seriously, are you 12? Are your parents rich? Have you ever built something you can live in with your own two hands?
 
2012-08-26 03:42:18 AM
I see that the level of discourse has developed to "Nuh uh!"
 
2012-08-26 06:37:30 AM

RanDomino: I see that the level of discourse has developed to "Nuh uh!"


Yeah, after I asked you several specific questions and you keep pretending they won't be an issue because your system will magically have more "human decency" than any other one, and you keep pretending that you enjoy no benefits of modern society.
 
2012-08-26 11:46:57 AM
liam76
system will magically have more "human decency"

It's hard to imagine what decent people are like when you're surrounded by people who have been made into assholes by the constant pressures of capitalism and authoritarianism.
 
2012-08-26 05:01:20 PM

RanDomino: liam76
system will magically have more "human decency"

It's hard to imagine what decent people are like when you're surrounded by people who have been made into assholes by the constant pressures of capitalism and authoritarianism.


Pointing out the glaring flaws in your system that are apparent to anyone who has built something they need to live doesn't make someone an asshole.

The starvation caused from losing the modern benefits that your system can't provide however would turn everyone into an asshole.
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report