The question of "human nature" has been involved in debates regarding the necessity of authoritarian institutions such as religions and national governments. It is argued that humans are inherently selfish and/or immoral in nature and need some set of societal constraints to prevent wholesale mayhem. In more religious terminology, we are sheep and have need of a shepherd to guide us along a moral path. Clerics and politicians alike preach the need for "leaders", figures of authority, to maintain the established order. Non-authoritarian models for society such as anarchism are rejected out-of-hand as "impractical" or "unrealistic" due to the allegedly selfish nature of human nature.
There's a fair amount of evidence about to suggest that this view of human nature is erroneous. An early example of such evidence is provided by biologist W.D. Hamilton who in 1964 attempted to explain how ostensibly selfish organisms could evolve to share their time and resources, even sacrificing themselves for the good of others.
Robert Axelrod in his book (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation staged computer tournaments where competitors submitted evolutionary strategies in the form of computer programs. I'll spare you the details but winner was always Anatol Rapoport's tit for tat strategy or some variant thereof. The details of the tit for tat strategy can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat.
Basically it means be nice for starters and continue being nice until someone screws you; then screw him back. But then forgive him if he starts playing nicely again. If you screw your opponent and he is nice to you, you get maximum profit and he gets nothing. If you both cooperate then you each get a nice reward but lower than the maximum. If you both try to screw each other each of you gets a very small reward.
Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.
The biological implementation of this strategy must involve "drives" similar to sex, hunger, sleep, etc. type drives. The expectation is borne out: "Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. I haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.
So humans can be expected to behave decently in an egalitarian society. In societies that exhibit social hierarchies such as our own, we can and often do behave badly. As a rationalist, I admit that everything written above could be total rubbish. I'm perfectly willing to admit I am wrong and if I'm wrong I'd certainly benefit from knowing about it and knowing why or how. Therefore all views pro or con would be most welcome.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 06:29:45 PM
Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.
Well, the second prize. First prize goes to the exploiter who succeeds in making the playing field uneven in his own favour. ;) I take your point, though.
QuoteI haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.
That does seem likely - I don't personally know anyone who doesn't have one, however saintly they claim to be. What controls it is possibly not our innate good-nature but rather the awareness that it is likely to backfire: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." The immediate act of retaliation is probably to withdraw from further interaction, rather than to actively retaliate.
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 06:29:45 PM
Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.
Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India. Or in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire. Of course, after receiving the inheritance, they both stopped turning the other cheek and turned into oppressors. Turning the other cheek can keep the lowly under the radar of the oppressor - they do not seem to be a threat as long as they meekly submit, and then they can continue to exist and wait until a better opportunity arises. Jesus was speaking to the oppressed, and the strategy of meekness seemed to work (which is one reason Gandhi adopted it). It was much better than open confrontation against a massively stronger force like the British and Roman Empires.
That being said, if you do have a level playing field, everything you said seems appropriate. Most of us rightfully assess our abilities to be in the average range, so it behooves each of us to act cooperatively with others more or less equal with us. However, if an
Ubermensch arises, he can kick over everyone's cans and do as he pleases, which is to his benefit. So we must cooperate to prevent him from arising and ruining it for all of us.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 07:42:03 PM
Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.
Just to clarify, are you calling Gandhi meek? Non-violent does not = meek.
QuoteOr in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire.
Constantine? This would be Constantine the Great who had his son and his wife put to death because his mother said so? Well, I suppose doing what your mother tells you to do is pretty meek.
Seriously, is this some Christian usage of the term meek?
<Sorry, this is off-topic but I just had to respond.>
Quote from: Ildiko on October 15, 2011, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 06:29:45 PM
Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.
Well, the second prize. First prize goes to the exploiter who succeeds in making the playing field uneven in his own favour. ;) I take your point, though.
Tit for tat, if done properly, avoids allowing anyone with a different strategy taking over the group. At least in Axelrod's model, people cease reciprocation with the individual that does. Problem is, people are complex, with complex interests.
Also, could anyone more mathematically able (I suck at maths) clarify if the tit for tat strategy works with an infinite number of people? Or is there a tipping point when it become chaotic?
Edited to rephrase: In a realistic scenario, is there a minimum or maximum number of people necessary for the group to be stable,
taking complex interests into account?
QuoteI haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.
I found something on Altruistic Revenge (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20673803) which is interesting because sometimes it's focused more on group fitness or survival than on the vengeful individual, who sometimes is adversely affected.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 15, 2011, 08:05:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 07:42:03 PM
Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.
Just to clarify, are you calling Gandhi meek? Non-violent does not = meek.
QuoteOr in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire.
Constantine? This would be Constantine the Great who had his son and his wife put to death because his mother said so? Well, I suppose doing what your mother tells you to do is pretty meek.
Seriously, is this some Christian usage of the term meek?
<Sorry, this is off-topic but I just had to respond.>
You are missing the point. Gandhi turned the other cheek. His followers, the meek of India (have you ever been to India?) essentially defeated the British Empire, not generally by violence, but by following Gandhi's and Jesus' examples of turning the other cheek. The meek inherited India, by following someone who turned the other cheek.
The meek of the 4th Century were not the armies of Constantine or Constantine himself, but the Christians who had endured unspeakable horrors at the hands of the Romans for 300 years. They generally practiced non-violence, and eventually found themselves part of the majority religion. Had they continually taken up arms against Rome, they would have been annihilated. As it was, they patiently endured, and found themselves on top eventually. How they acted after that is another matter.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 10:50:36 PM
You are missing the point. Gandhi turned the other cheek. His followers, the meek of India (have you ever been to India?) essentially defeated the British Empire, not generally by violence, but by following Gandhi's and Jesus' examples of turning the other cheek. The meek inherited India, by following someone who turned the other cheek.
I have, and the people there of the lower castes are meek, which is why the caste system still exists.
Gandhi saw the benefit of not escalating violence, because it can quickly go out of control. Pity he was killed by a religious fundamentalist though.
I said:
Quoteand the meek shall inherit very little if anything.
Bruce said:
QuoteExcept in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.
and then he said:
QuoteYou are missing the point. Gandhi turned the other cheek.
First let's look a the meaning of
meekThis from Merrium-Webster
Quote1 : enduring injury with patience and without resentment : mild
2 : deficient in spirit and courage : submissive
3 : not violent or strong : moderate
I think we can agree (am I too optimistic here?) that Gandhi wasn't "meek" in sense #2 What about sense #3?
Bruce, does beating your wife count as being non-violent or strong? Consider the following:
QuoteGandhi was a good man he is the man who was extremely angry. He had a lot of anger but the anger was channeled towards something that helped society. It is a well known fact that he beat his wife but that does not make him a bad person.
I found this in answers.com but was somewhat sceptical as to its accuracy. I didn't know Gandhi beat his wife, did you? In my value-system (not god's) beating your wife or anyone else who doesn't threaten your continued physical existence, for that matter is a violent and strong reaction. In any event I searched further looking for confirmation and ... bingo!!!! I found this:
QuoteHe [Gandhi] admitted in his autobiography to beating his young wife, and indulging in carnal pleasures out of lust, jealousy and possessiveness...
Just to show that this violence was not a one-off example of exuberant youth, consider this, Bruce:
QuoteIn April 1918, during the latter part of World War I, the Viceroy invited Gandhi to a War Conference in Delhi[29] Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India's independence,[30] Gandhi agreed to actively recruit Indians for the war effort.[31] In contrast to the Zulu War of 1906 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, when he recruited volunteers for the Ambulance Corps, this time Gandhi attempted to recruit combatants.
Easily verifiable if you have doubts about it, Bruce. To me, recruiting people to fight in a war is not very non-violent but then I don't have the benefit of a religious background.
I think we can say with confidence that Gandhi was
not meek in sense #3. Finally, let's turn to sense #1.
Here's how Gandhi endured imprisonment:
Quote
Some of Gandhi's South African articles are controversial. On 7 March 1908, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion of his time in a South African prison: "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals... The kaffirs' sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness. They're loafers... a species of humanity almost unknown among the Indians."[19] Writing on the subject of immigration in 1903, Gandhi commented: "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race."
Note that "kaffir" is quite a strong term being roughly equivalent to "nigger" in American English.
To my tiny mind that strongly smacks of impatience and resentment. We can then state that Gandhi was not meek in sense #1. So we conclude:
Gandhi was not meek. QED
Sorry to be so pedantic, Bruce, but you forced my hand. As a final point, in my reading of things "turning the other cheek" means non-resistance and does not mean "non-violent resistance. Workers who go out on strike in reaction to some gross misconduct by the boss are not turning the other cheek. But then I don't have the benefit of a personal relationship with god, so what do I know about such things. ;)
I await with great impatience you response.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 06:25:43 AM
I await with great impatience you response.
I'll grant you that Gandhi could have been an asshole, personally. But he was non-violent in his response to his enemy (British Empire), and as a result, the meek (average Indians) inherited India. Up to 1948, the British had India for about 200 years. Now, the Indians, all 1,000,000,000 of them, have it - the world's largest democracy.
MLK was also, at times, an asshole in his personal life - cheated on his wife. But today he was honored with his own monument on the Mall in D.C. He was non-violent against his enemy (U.S. racism), and as a result, the meek (African Americans) inherited the USA (now one of them is President, and others are Senators, Representative, S.C. Justices, billionaire businessmen, star athletes, etc.) None of this existed before MLK acted with non-violence (i.e.; turned the other cheek).
There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today). But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion. They inherited the Roman Empire. After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.
That's my argument. Sometimes turning the other cheek is a good strategy, and as a result, meek inherit the earth.
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 06:29:45 PM
The question of "human nature" has been involved in debates regarding the necessity of authoritarian institutions such as religions and national governments. It is argued that humans are inherently selfish and/or immoral in nature and need some set of societal constraints to prevent wholesale mayhem. In more religious terminology, we are sheep and have need of a shepherd to guide us along a moral path. Clerics and politicians alike preach the need for "leaders", figures of authority, to maintain the established order. Non-authoritarian models for society such as anarchism are rejected out-of-hand as "impractical" or "unrealistic" due to the allegedly selfish nature of human nature.
There's a fair amount of evidence about to suggest that this view of human nature is erroneous.
Have you ever read a book called
Our Inner Ape, by Frans De Waal? He used a comparison between human society and the societies of two of our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and the bonobos, to look at this question and come to similar conclusions.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
I'll grant you that Gandhi... [and all that followed bellow]
I still think you have got the wrong end of the stick with the word meek. Sorry for being fussy but it doesn't really make sense due to the use of the word meek. Meek is being submissive, yielding, obedient, compliant, tame, biddable, tractable, acquiescent, humble, deferential, timid, unprotesting, unresisting, quiet, mild, gentle, docile, lamblike, shy, diffident, unassuming, self-effacing. With the two examples you gave of why the meek will inherit the earth the historical records are far from meek. The Indian people may not have been violent but they certainly weren't meek otherwise they wouldn't have done anything and wouldn't have stood up for their independence. Same goes for Christians.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 16, 2011, 06:25:43 AM
I await with great impatience you response.
I'll grant you that Gandhi could have been an asshole, personally. But he was non-violent in his response to his enemy (British Empire), and as a result, the meek (average Indians) inherited India. Up to 1948, the British had India for about 200 years. Now, the Indians, all 1,000,000,000 of them, have it - the world's largest democracy.
MLK was also, at times, an asshole in his personal life - cheated on his wife. But today he was honored with his own monument on the Mall in D.C. He was non-violent against his enemy (U.S. racism), and as a result, the meek (African Americans) inherited the USA (now one of them is President, and others are Senators, Representative, S.C. Justices, billionaire businessmen, star athletes, etc.) None of this existed before MLK acted with non-violence (i.e.; turned the other cheek).
There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today). But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion. They inherited the Roman Empire. After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.
That's my argument. Sometimes turning the other cheek is a good strategy, and as a result, meek inherit the earth.
Are you aware of the deal Britain made with India during WWII to keep them fighting with the Allies?
Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress. :) Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?
QuoteMore than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.
Human rights abuses against these people, known as Dalits, are legion. A random sampling of headlines in mainstream Indian newspapers tells their story: "Dalit boy beaten to death for plucking flowers"; "Dalit tortured by cops for three days"; "Dalit 'witch' paraded naked in Bihar"; "Dalit killed in lock-up at Kurnool"; "7 Dalits burnt alive in caste clash"; "5 Dalits lynched in Haryana"; "Dalit woman gang-raped, paraded naked"; "Police egged on mob to lynch Dalits".
Being a nice guy I supply you with a link and there are many more where that came from.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html)
"And the meek shall inherit the earth" along with "turn the other cheek" are what someone with money and power would say to keep the rabble in line.
I await your reply with extreme interest.
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 17, 2011, 04:49:55 PM
I await your reply with extreme interest.
Me too, Bruce.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 10:50:36 PM
The meek of the 4th Century were not the armies of Constantine or Constantine himself, but the Christians who had endured unspeakable horrors at the hands of the Romans for 300 years. They generally practiced non-violence, and eventually found themselves part of the majority religion. Had they continually taken up arms against Rome, they would have been annihilated. As it was, they patiently endured, and found themselves on top eventually. How they acted after that is another matter.
Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda. The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)
The truth is that the Roman Empire only ever officially persecuted Christians in a systemic way for
five years; in 250 CE under Decius, between 257-9 under Valerian and between 303–5 under Diocletian. There were admittedly a few other short term and localised persecutions during Christianity's first 300 years, but nothing long-term or Empire wide. So it really wasn't 300 years of unspeakable horrors for the early Christians! It's also worth pointing out that far more Christians were murdered by fellow Christians in the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century than were killed at the hands of pagans during all the persecutions of the previous three centuries!
The early Christians were generally not the meek peace loving hippies you're trying to portray them as. The evidence suggests many were religious zealots and fundamentalists with a fervour for martyrdom, who believed everyone around them worshipped 'false' gods and 'devils'. That's how the earliest independent accounts of Christians describe them. They also believed that Jesus was going to immanently return and destroy the Earth in a great fire, killing all those dirty 'heathen' folk in the process and taking Christians up to heaven (only the correct type of Christians mind, all the others would burn with the pagans!). From their fervour for martyrdom, their intolerance towards every other religion, and their hatred of classical civilization, I would say many early Christians were closer to Al Quaeda than to Ghandi!
Given that the Roman Empire was pretty tolerant in the area of religion, I think you have to ask why Christians were singled out for persecution, albeit only sporadically and for a handful of years. I think the answer is that the Romans were sometimes dealing with religious fanatics who hated classical civilization, and went round doing things like smashing up temples, libraries and statues of the gods. They dealt with the Christians in the same way we might deal with Islamic extremists, who oppose western civilization and all its values. If the Christians had just been good citizens and worshipped their god and saviour peacefully alongside all the other gods and saviours of the Empire, they never would have been persecuted.
Here's a few examples of the crazy mindset a lot of early Christians had...
Tertullian (160 – 225 CE)
'You are fond of spectacles, expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgement of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, and fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ.'
Firmicus Maternus (early fourth century)
'It is enjoined on you by the law of the supreme God, that you severely prosecute in every way the crime of idolatry. Hear and entrust to your holy consciousness what God commands concerning this crime. God orders that neither son nor brother be spared, and directs the sword as an avenger through the beloved limbs of a wife. A friend he also persecutes with lofty severity, and all the people are roused to arms to rend the bodies of sacrilegious people. Destruction is determined even for whole cities, if they are apprehended in this crime'
Ambrose of Milan (337-397)
'Salvation is not sure unless everyone worships in truth the same true God, who is to be worshipped from the bottom of the heart; for the "gods of the heathen", as Scripture says, "are devils".'
Now compare those Christian comments with this from Celsus (second century), a pagan who disliked Christianity, and I think you can see the clear difference between pagan and Christian mindset
'Yet these goatherds and shepherds came to believe in one god and called him the Most High...and came to discredit all other gods. Yet in excluding the other names of the highest god, have not they shown their foolishness! It matters not a bit what one calls the supreme God – or whether one uses Greek names or Indian names or the names formerly used by the Egyptians'
And this from another pagan, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (340 – 402 CE)
'And so we ask for peace for the gods of our fathers, for the gods of our native land. It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze upon the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe compasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret.'
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today). But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion. They inherited the Roman Empire. After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.
Bruce there is absolutely no evidence for this. Indeed the evidence contradicts what you believe. The earliest Roman sources to mention Christians describe them as religious fanatics with a fervour for martyrdom and death, and suggest maybe they all just wanted to follow in the footsteps of their saviour!
Ramsay MacMullen is an Emeritus Professor of history at Yale University, and his scholarly interests are in the social history of Rome and the replacement of paganism by Christianity. He is a world expert on religion in the Roman Empire and he described these 'meek' early Christians with,
'If we stop here a moment, however, to assess the various familiar ways, so summarily recalled, in which Christianity differed from the general context of opinion around it, the one point of difference that seems most salient was the antagonism inherent in it – antagonism of God toward all other supernatural powers, of God toward every man or woman who refused allegiance, and of those who granted their allegiance toward all the remaining stubborn unbelievers. It was not the church's liturgy, nor morals, nor monotheism, nor internal organization that seemed to non-Christians much different from other people's or at all blameworthy. At least, there is no evidence for anything of that sort.'
Intolerance is arguably the one thing that defined early Christianity, and the only way that it differed from other Roman religions. For me intolerance does not equal meek on any level.
Quote from: Attila on October 17, 2011, 04:49:55 PM
Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress. :) Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?
No, what I mean to say is that the Indians have inherited India instead of the British. Your homeland no longer owns India. Indians own India, and they own it not because they took up arms against the UK, but because of the non-violent philosophy of Gandhi. Admit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses. Turn the other cheek (heh, heh), and inherit a country. Works for me.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 09:26:46 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today). But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion. They inherited the Roman Empire. After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.
Bruce there is absolutely no evidence for this. Indeed the evidence contradicts what you believe. The earliest Roman sources to mention Christians describe them as religious fanatics with a fervour for martyrdom and death, and suggest maybe they all just wanted to follow in the footsteps of their saviour!
You don't even understand what you have posted. Being religious fanatics is not the same as being violent attackers of Rome. They boldly proclaimed their faith, and were martyred. It was the Romans who were tossing them to the lions, not vice-a-versa. Rome and its legions were infinitely stronger than the Christian minority, but the generally non-violent minority became the majority. The meek inherited the earth.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda.
You are soooooo condescending. What is your educational level?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)
Blah, blah, blah. I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian. You conveniently left them out of your persecution history. The point I was making is that Christians were not violently attempting to overthrow the Roman Empire for the first three centuries. They were generally non-violent. You even cited some examples AFTER Constantine. I admitted that after Constantine there were a lot of Christian assholes. And so what if Tertullian had some hard feelings against Rome - he couldn't and didn't do anything about it violently. The fact remains that Christians were, on the whole, the persecuted minority for a couple or three centuries, and did not, on the whole, react violently. Then, they inherited "the earth." Why do you not admit this????
EDIT: Fixed quotes - Tank
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 03:57:26 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 17, 2011, 04:49:55 PM
Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress. :) Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?
No, what I mean to say is that the Indians have inherited India instead of the British. Your homeland no longer owns India. Indians own India, and they own it not because they took up arms against the UK, but because of the non-violent philosophy of Gandhi. Admit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses. Turn the other cheek (heh, heh), and inherit a country. Works for me.
Hmm. Interesting that you don't address my point. It's really quite simple you claimed that "the meek (average Indians) inherited India." Are you seriously claiming that "average Indians" are meek? Intelligent? Yes. Friendly? Yes. Funny (sense of humour)? Yes. Original? Yes. Meek? You must be joking. I guess your circle of acquaintances doesn't include many Indians.
QuoteYour homeland no longer owns India.
ROTFL! Bruce, you are so hopelessly wrong so often that it's impossible to get angry with you. It's just too funny. My homeland never owned India or even made a colony of it, for the very simple reason that I don't have one. Once again your impoverished grasp of facts and your unwarranted assumptions get the better of you.
QuoteAdmit it - the Brits got their asses whipped by someone who refused to whip their asses.
I freely admit that Britain was defeated by a variety of nationalist resistance movements both violent and non-violent. The remainder of your comment is utter nonsense, contrary to historical facts. To put is as kindly as possible, your knowledge of that period seems rather tenuous and your conclusions, extremely simplistic. Once again I plead with you to offer documentation to support your outlandish claims. I would happily supply your with evidence to the contrary but you don't seem to be terribly interested in evidence.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 18, 2011, 05:11:23 AM
Hmm. Interesting that you don't address my point. It's really quite simple you claimed that "the meek (average Indians) inherited India." Are you seriously claiming that "average Indians" are meek? Intelligent? Yes. Friendly? Yes. Funny (sense of humour)? Yes. Original? Yes. Meek? You must be joking. I guess your circle of acquaintances doesn't include many Indians.
Quite a few, actually. They are not nearly as violent as Americans and Britains. After all, India never occupied the USA or England, right?
Quote from: Attila on October 18, 2011, 05:11:23 AM
Bruce, you are so hopelessly wrong so often that it's impossible to get angry with you. It's just too funny. My homeland never owned India or even made a colony of it, for the very simple reason that I don't have one. Once again your impoverished grasp of facts and your unwarranted assumptions get the better of you.
Where were you born? If in the UK, I'm right. If elsewhere, I admit I'm wrong. I thought you were born British. If I'm mistaken, I admit it.
Quote from: Attila on October 18, 2011, 05:11:23 AM
I freely admit that Britain was defeated by a variety of nationalist resistance movements both violent and non-violent. The remainder of your comment is utter nonsense, contrary to historical facts. To put is as kindly as possible, your knowledge of that period seems rather tenuous and your conclusions, extremely simplistic. Once again I plead with you to offer documentation to support your outlandish claims. I would happily supply your with evidence to the contrary but you don't seem to be terribly interested in evidence.
From Wiki: "Some Indian historians, however, argue that, in fact, it was Quit India (a movement started by Gandhi – Ecurb's note) that succeeded. In support of the latter view, without doubt, the war had sapped a lot of the economic, political and military life-blood of the Empire, and the powerful Indian resistance had shattered the spirit and will of the British government. However, such historians effectively ignore the contributions of the radical movements to transfer of power in 1947. Regardless of whether it was the powerful common call for resistance among Indians that shattered the spirit and will of the British Raj to continue ruling India, or whether it was the ferment of rebellion and resentment among the British Indian Armed Forces what is beyond doubt, is that a population of millions had been motivated as it never had been before to say ultimately that independence was a non-negotiable goal, and every act of defiance and rebel only stoked this fire. In addition, the British people and the British Army seemed unwilling to back a policy of repression in India and other parts of the Empire even as their own country was recovering from war. "
A population of millions had been motivated – this was from the non-violent campaign of Gandhi, putting into practice the non-violent teachings of Jesus. Sure, there were many other forces involved, but ultimately the non-violent aspect of the Indian resistance caused the UK to leave – without a major destructive war. The force of this movement caused the British to pack up and go home.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 05:54:56 AM
Where were you born?
In a truly horrible place that did me service of denationalising me 1972. I was long gone by that time so it didn't really matter but I am the envy of all my friends.
QuoteIf in the UK, I'm right. If elsewhere, I admit I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
QuoteI thought you were born British. If I'm mistaken, I admit it.
No, I wasn't but I lived there for 11 years (1988-1999).
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 04:11:31 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda.
You are soooooo condescending. What is your educational level?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)
Blah, blah, blah. I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian. You conveniently left them out of your persecution history. The point I was making is that Christians were not violently attempting to overthrow the Roman Empire for the first three centuries. They were generally non-violent. You even cited some examples AFTER Constantine. I admitted that after Constantine there were a lot of Christian assholes. And so what if Tertullian had some hard feelings against Rome - he couldn't and didn't do anything about it violently. The fact remains that Christians were, on the whole, the persecuted minority for a couple or three centuries, and did not, on the whole, react violently. Then, they inherited "the earth." Why do you not admit this????
And I have three words for you, Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian. All murderous Christian emperors, who killed many more pagans and 'heretical' Christians than all the supposed persecutions of Christians under Roman rule.
There's a reason I left Domitian and Nero out, it's because there's not much evidence that they ever persecuted Christians!
Domitian, really? There's really not much evidence he ever persecuted Christians. Here's what wikipedia says on the subject - 'Other historians, however, have maintained that there was little or no persecution of Christians during Domitian's time' and 'Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim.'
As for Nero, I think it's debatable whether or not he ever persecuted any Christians. Even if he did, it was only a small and localised affair. To my knowledge that story appeared in the fourth century, spread by Eusebius who also made up lots of other fake Christian martyrdoms that you may well also believe. Out of all the many Roman authors that mention the Neronian fire of Rome, only Tacitus mentions the persecution of Christians, and he was writing 50 years after the event. the trouble is that part of the text first appears in the fifth century, produced by Christian propagandists. It's generally considered a later insertion into the text. The trouble is Eusebius and the Christians who followed him reinvented Christianity and created a false history of martyrs and Christianity in general. We also have the problem that these supposed persecutions of Nero aren't mentioned in Acts, or the gospels or other Christian works supposedly from the era. personally I think Nero's had a bit of a bum rap over the past 1900 years.
The Romans were pretty tolerant in the area of religion. Surely religious tolerance is represented by diversity of belief, and there was a lot of diversity in belief in the Roman Empire, more than there is in Europe or the US today. I'll repeat what I said in myy last post, Christians were only officially persecuted for five years in the 300 years before they gained power. It wasn't 300 years of horrors for the early Christians as you've tried to claim. Even if you want to claim Domitian did persecute Christians, it's still 160 years until the next persecution under Decius in 250 CE. Most of the persecution of Christians (if not pretty much all) took place in the later 3rd and early 4th centuries, when they were far from meek, and were causing public unrest with their open intolerance towards the other religions and the classical way of life.
This isn't just my opinion, here's a quote from Professor Gwatkin, the ecclesiastical historian of Cambridge University in his Dictionary of Religion and Ethics;
'the cold historical truth is that we cannot admit more than two, or at the most three, "general persecutions." The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant. They banned all other religions under penalty of death, they outlawed all philosophical discussion on religious matters, they proscribed and burned as many pagan texts as they could lay their hands on, closed down temples and libraries and outlawed all non-Christian festivals (like the Olympic games). that's why 'the meek inherited the Earth', the same way the Communists or anyone else did, by ruthlessly eliminating anyone they considered to be opposition.
There is no evidence to suggest that early Christians were 'meek', or at least any more meek than anyone else from the period. And not much evidence they were ever really persecuted that much before the mid-third century, by which point they were far from meek anyway, and that's why they were persecuted. If you choose to believe otherwise, it's your decision, but I don't think it's historically correct. Not that that should be a problem for a Christian! ;)
EDIT: Fixed quotes - Tank
Quote from: Too many Lions
The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 04:11:31 AM
Blah, blah, blah. I've only got two words for you - Nero and Domitian.
WTF?
QuoteDomitian's foreign policy was realistic, rejecting expansionist warfare and negotiating peace at a time when Roman military tradition dictated aggressive conquest. His economic program, which was rigorously efficient, maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve. Persecution of religious minorities, such as Jews and Christians, was non-existent.
Source: Jones, Brian W.
The Emperor Domitian. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10195-6. (1992), pp. 114–119 Am I missing something here?
As for Nero, ... he killed loads of christians but he was an equal-opportunity certifiable homicidal lunatic. He also killed his mother (Agrippina) and one of his wives (Octavia) so he did spread it about. I'm not sure about the relevance of Nero to the meek inheriting the earth. Since we seem to be drifting every wider of the point of this thread, let me summarise what I am claiming:
1. Human social interactions tend towards cooperative if conducted on an equal playing-field when each participant (individual or group) is free to defect.
2. If one player or group is deprived of the right to defect then selfish behaviour (defection) becomes the most profitable.
3. Therefore a policy of submission (cooperation under all conditions manifested by a failure to retaliate, i.e. to defect) leads to selfish/exploitative behaviour and not cooperation.
4. Therefore human beings have no need for shepherds. Left to their own they cooperate, not for any moral reasons but because such behaviour has evolved through natural selection. Cooperative drives exist in humans (like those of hunger, sex, thirst) and "revenge or defection drives" should exist as well.
5. Defection or retaliation need not be violent. It most typically involves refusal of further interaction with the offending group or individual. If you screw me, I'll have nothing further to do with you.
6. Let me emphasise that defection/relation need not involve violence. Indeed its most typical form is refusal to have anything more to do with the non-cooperator. If a company cheats you then they will no longer have your custom.
7. I interpret "turning the other cheek" as submission and not as passive, non-violent resistance. Just to be sure we're talking about the same sermon, here it is:
QuoteYou have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
I think that the following sentence is particularly telling. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." We are not talking about passive resistance here. This is clearly submission. Submission can only encourage more instances of exploitative behaviour.
Let me bore you again with the reminder that I can be wrong about any or all of these points. Please don't hesitate to call me out but let's try to stay on topic.
ciao,
Attila
A lot less name calling and snarking please or I'll be locking threads - Tank
sorry Tank. Never heard the word 'snark' before (other than in Lewis Carroll), thanks for introducing me to it!
no name calling I promise, sorry for any offence caused. I just wanted to mention the Book of Revelation and leave it at that. It's not unique as an early Christian text and it's not particularly meek!
eg
'The nations raged, but thy day of retribution has come.' Rev 11.13
'For the great day of their vengeance has come, and who will be able to stand ?' Rev 6.15-17
And even some direct attacks on the city of Rome itself;
'The kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in her luxury, will weep and mourn over her as they see the smoke of her burning' Rev 18.9
'Then every sea captain and passenger, the sailors and others who trade by sea, stood at a distance and cried out as they saw the smoke of her conflagration, "What city is like this great city?"' Rev 18.17-18
Plus there's similar stuff like the Sibylline Oracles.
eg;
'The people of seven hilled Rome, and riches great
Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame,
And then shall bloody signs from heaven descend-
But yet the whole world of unnumbered men
Enraged shall kill each other, and in tumult
Shall God send famines, plagues, and thunderbolts' S.O. 2.19-21
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 18, 2011, 04:32:01 PM
no name calling I promise, sorry for any offence caused. I just wanted to mention the Book of Revelation and leave it at that. It's not unique as an early Christian text and it's not particularly meek!
eg
'The nations raged, but thy day of retribution has come.' Rev 11.13
'For the great day of their vengeance has come, and who will be able to stand ?' Rev 6.15-17
And even some direct attacks on the city of Rome itself;
'The kings of the earth who committed fornication with her and lived in her luxury, will weep and mourn over her as they see the smoke of her burning' Rev 18.9
'Then every sea captain and passenger, the sailors and others who trade by sea, stood at a distance and cried out as they saw the smoke of her conflagration, "What city is like this great city?"' Rev 18.17-18
Plus there's similar stuff like the Sibylline Oracles.
eg;
'The people of seven hilled Rome, and riches great
Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame,
And then shall bloody signs from heaven descend-
But yet the whole world of unnumbered men
Enraged shall kill each other, and in tumult
Shall God send famines, plagues, and thunderbolts' S.O. 2.19-21
Hi TFL
I suppose that would be called metaphor. I have
no understanding or intuitions about when something in the bible is metaphor and when you need to take it literally (seriously?). Anyway, what is your view on human nature? (the subject of this thread after all). I'm quite happy with the tit for tat view (or some variant thereof). Not to pollyanna/goodie-two-shoes but not savage in tooth and claw either. Any thoughts?
On the violent and megalomanic nature of Jesus, I still don't understand how Luke 19:27
is to be interpretedQuote from: kjvBut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
It all seems pretty clear and unambiguous. What other reading can you get other than:
1.Consider me your king (megalomania)
2.Kill them (violence)
You seem to know more about this stuff than I do. What message is this verse meant to send?
I don't want anyone to reign over me (that's why I'm an anarchist), do you reckon I'm in danger?
Ciao,
Attila
whoops, left out the all import negative in bold above. sorry about that. :-[
hi Attila
My point was merely that the views expressed are vitriolic, and not meek. I actually really liked your original post, and totally agree with you. Sorry for not replying to it earlier. I think I'm a bit of a tit-for-tat person in real life. I never try and screw anyone else over and always try to be considerate to others and do my best by them, but if someone screws me over I try and hit back a bit, hoping they might realise they don't get away with treating other people like crap. Having said that it depends a bit on how badly I think someone's screwed me over, and how bothered I can be to not just let it wash over me. I also tend to cut people I see as 'takers' out of my life, so I've ended up with a very large and lovely circle of friends. Like you said, I think turning the other cheek just encourages and rewards predatatory, selfish and antisocial behaviour.
I'm all for a level playing field in life, and I dislike the apparent human need for stratified layers of authority. I'd like to think that the prize should go to those exercising fair play, unfortunately i think history teaches us that the prize often goes to those exerting ruthlessness and power. I don't think everyone would be as nice as me and you would be in an egalitarian / anarchic society, and I worry people who crave power would just recreate the same systems we have now and have had historically. I think that sort of society might work well on the micro scale though, if everyone involved was like minded. Let me know if you fancy giving it a go!
And sorry for railroading the thread off the issue. I just don't accept that the early Christians were very meek, or that the Romans were very oppressive in their behaviour towards them.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 18, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
hi Attila
My point was merely that the views expressed are vitriolic, and not meek.
I agree with you.
QuoteI actually really liked your original post, and totally agree with you. I think I'm a bit of a tit-for-tat person in real life. I never try and screw anyone else over and always try to be considerate to others and do my best by them, but if someone screws me over I try and hit back a bit, hoping they might realise they don't get away with treating other people like crap. I also tend to cut people I see as 'takers' out of my life, so I've ended up with a very large and lovely circle of friends. Like you said, I think turning the other cheek just encourages and rewards predatatory, selfish and antisocial behaviour.
I'm all for a level playing field in life, and I dislike the apparent human need for stratified layers of authority. I'd like to think that the prize should go to those exercising fair play, unfortunately i think history teaches us that the prize often goes to those exerting ruthlessness and power. I don't think everyone would be as nice as me and you would be in an egalitarian / anarchic society, and I worry people who crave power would just recreate the same systems we have now and have had historically. I think that sort of society might work well on the micro scale though, if everyone involved was like minded. Let me know if you fancy giving it a go!
Actually my view is that nations are a relatively recent phenomenon 2-3 centuries. Before that a considerably portion of the world population lived with extremely limited external authority imposed on them. The governing units (villages/cities/agricultural areas) where reasonably egalitarian with only occasional episodes of external authoritarian episodes. National governments and organised religion are the principal agents of authoritarianism and are mutually reinforcing. My personal experiences in the Amazonian and West African village life have been quite pleasant. People have always been mostly very nice and, at worst, merely civil. Typically people were somewhat deferential to the elders but that never got to the point of being hierarchical. I experiences this life for the first time when I was 21 and it completely zapped out my world view. I did not come from a religious background at all but I did think that the notion of primitive societies was valid and that I could help these people out since I came from a technologically advanced country. It took me about a week to jettison this stupidity and realise that I was in the presence of professionals and my best move would be to keep my mouth shut and my eyes and ears open and learn something. It's never been the same after that.
QuoteAnd sorry for railroading the thread off the issue. I just don't accept that the early Christians were very meek, or that the Romans were very oppressive in their behaviour towards them.
No worries and no railroading as far as I could see. We all can get carried away with a subject and that's a good thing. I devoured your posts and learned a lot from you for which I thank you.
ciao,
Attila
QuoteNo worries and no railroading as far as I could see. We all can get carried away with a subject and that's a good thing. I devoured your posts and learned a lot from you for which I thank you.
ciao,
Attila
Same goes Attila, you've made some really interesting posts that I've enjoyed reading on quite a few subjects, and shown a lot of knowledge, wisdom and humour in the process. thanks
The Monty Python sketch for this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related)
;D
I actually think that it could work for small-ish communities, villages and cooperations.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 18, 2011, 07:34:43 PM
The Monty Python sketch for this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related)
;D
I actually think that it could work for small-ish communities, villages and cooperations.
It's always a pleasure to see that skit again. Along with John Cleese and the dead (or late) parrot it is a classic of Pythonesque humour. But seriously folks, if you think the model could work for smallish-communities and so on (I hate all corporations though) do you really think the current system is working for larger communities? I live in Italy and the is the Bunga-bunga model of government really what you cherish? Consider Belgium that has miraculously survived without a government (only a civil service) for over a year. Does anyone seriously believe that David Cameron, Nicky Clegg, Ed Milliband have any talent other than stuffing their pockets and looking after the interests of the RBS, Barclay's, the City? You and I could do a better job by the simple virtue of not being bought and paid for by scum.
Ciao,
Attila
I don't think it's enough to just talk about whether human nature can make an anarchist system plausible, there has to be a favorable societal context. With smaller groups such as villages, not only do people generally know eachother, but they might see eachother as extended family. There's modern tribalism there, which can be turned into a good thing - for the tribe. For others outside it, not so sure.
What you said about whether people would make such risk-involving decisions if they really thought the risks are real and will affect them makes perfect sense. I really do doubt they would have so eagerly have chosen to go to war if that meant things got worse for their micro-society.
Smaller groups would also mean it would be easier to hold people accountable (I meant really hold people accountable and remove anonymity, which would make them a bit more careful about preserving their reputation and trustworthiness. For social animals who depend on eachother this seems to be essential...
I guess for larger communities, maybe the smallest units would be familial/tribal groups, going from around 200 to...I really haven't a clue ;D. But with none strong enough to take over or exploit a non cooperative group. Totally independent. ;D
I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO. ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 18, 2011, 09:05:52 PM
I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO. ;D
But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices? Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations? It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved. Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 19, 2011, 04:17:58 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 18, 2011, 09:05:52 PM
I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO. ;D
But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices? Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations? It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved. Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.
After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power.
I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those. How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 19, 2011, 04:57:14 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 19, 2011, 04:17:58 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 18, 2011, 09:05:52 PM
I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO. ;D
But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices? Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations? It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved. Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.
After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power.
I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those. How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?
yeah, I think
those kind of anarchists give anarchists a bad name. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. I'd consider myself an anarchist by definition in that i don't like authority and would rather live without it, but I'm not violent in any way shape or form or
that kind of anarchist.
I just don't think it would work on a large scale because there are violent, anti-social people out there, and also people who like authority and power, who would probably just try to recreate a system similar to what we have now somewhere down the line, so they got to be in charge. In a small community of likeminded well-adjusted individuals without big egos I reckon it might work just fine.
Oh and Attila, 'extreme anarchist and wine lover' - love it! :D
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 19, 2011, 04:57:14 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 19, 2011, 04:17:58 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 18, 2011, 09:05:52 PM
I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO. ;D
But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices? Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations? It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved. Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.
After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power.
I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those. How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?
yeah, I think those kind of anarchists give anarchists a bad name. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. I'd consider myself an anarchist by definition in that i don't like authority and would rather live without it, but I'm not violent in any way shape or form or that kind of anarchist.
I just don't think it would work on a large scale because there are violent, anti-social people out there, and also people who like authority and power, who would probably just try to recreate a system similar to what we have now somewhere down the line, so they got to be in charge. In a small community of likeminded well-adjusted individuals without big egos I reckon it might work just fine.
Oh and Attila, 'extreme anarchist and wine lover' - love it! :D
Hi xSP and TFL,
I use anarchist referring to a specific political/moral philosophy which can be summed up as: All authority is evil and creates a fucked-up society. As I've said elsewhere, the black bloc demonstrators were not anarchists and I doubt very much they would describe themselves as such. I went into more detail in the "Occupy Wall Street" thread.
I see you both are of the opinion that non-authoritarian systems don't work on a large scale. You are certainly not alone in that view. I just wonder what you mean by "don't work". Are you both of the opinion that our current authoritarian system works? Call me stupid but I don't share that opinion.
ciao,
Attila
That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.
Then why not downsize them? Remember "countries" is their present form are a relatively recent phenomenon. Also the borders of every country have been drawn in human blood. You get truly ridiculous situations such as along the DRC-Angola border which cuts through the homeland of the Bakongo people. We now have the situation where families find themselves on different sides of the border which they have to cross in order to visit each other. And tell me who drew the borders and tell me in what sense does this work? If you prefer a European context (I won't bother with North America; it's too obvious) explain the logic behind the Slovak-Hungarian border which involves an ethnic Hungarian population in Slovakia, not at all to their benefit. And this works? Or explain to me why a Polish population speaking a Eastern Polish dialect is now found in Wroclaw, near the German border? This is just the tip of the iceberg in so far as the problems associated with our current administrative set-ups are concerned.
I have stated repeatedly that this is an empirical issue and I would happily be shown to be wrong. Are you willing to say the same? Or is this a faith-based issue for you both? Things are not always as obvious as they appear and at times the cleverest solutions to complex problems are not at all obvious at first glance. If you don't want to debate this as an open question, then I'll drop it and bother you no further.
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.
Seconded. I think that after a certain amount of people, with varying interests and personalities, things can get chaotic and unpredictable. Since what's good, evil and what causes harm can be more subjective than people would like to admit, it really depends on the goal to get people to cooperate. I think anarchy could work perfectly well with familial groups (tribes), or small villages, however. Anyways, wanting to say that people are either inherently good or evil is way to simplistic. That dichotomy doesn't exist, though people, as animals that evolved socially, do prefer cooperation over exploitation. Manifestations of that are biologically hard-wired, such as mirror neurons.
People want to live well and comfortably (common goal, even between criminals and non criminals), but how each does that and what route each person takes depends on the person and circumstance. There are also those who will exploit another if given the chance and unless the system has a way of dealing with those without resorting to top-down rules and authority then it either wouldn't last very long or it isn't anarchy.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that our authoritarian system works, though ??? I just don't think that an anarchic group
can function at the scale of nations, with millions or more.
Edited to add: are you suggesting that political borders be dissolved? In the case of the African continent, tribal groups would divide themselves using the landscape rather than imaginary lines, and interacted with people who shared a close tribal identity and language. Interestingly enough, even big tribal groups such as the Zulu organise themselves quite well.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 19, 2011, 04:41:41 PM
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that our authoritarian system works, though ??? I just don't think that an anarchic group can function at the scale of nations, with millions or more.
That may well be true, xSP but it might be false. At the moment I don't see any
theoretical reasons why a non-hierarchical system couldn't be scaled upwards. But suppose it can't. I've been trying to point out that the nation model is not an inevitable condition of human existence. We've done without it before and I don't see why we can't do without it again. We were born into this system which might create the illusion that no other system is possible. Maybe that's true but do you have any evidence to support that view?
QuoteEdited to add: are you suggesting that political borders be dissolved? In the case of the African continent, tribal groups would divide themselves using the landscape rather than imaginary lines, and interacted with people who shared a close tribal identity and language. Interestingly enough, even big tribal groups such as the Zulu organise themselves quite well.
Absolutely! In some ways, that's the direction that Europe is taking. The Schengen Agreement could be viewed as a step in that direction. Leaving aside the Euro catastrophe (avoidable if our system weren't being run by bankers and their cronies) the general feeling is quite positive about the blurring of national borders within the EU. I'm particularly aware of this since I live in a border town. The difference between going from Italy to Slovenia and from Slovenia to Croatia is quite spectacular. This may be why when I have a similar discussion with people from around here there is general agreement on this view.
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 19, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
That may well be true, xSP but it might be false. At the moment I don't see any theoretical reasons why a non-hierarchical system couldn't be scaled upwards. But suppose it can't. I've been trying to point out that the nation model is not an inevitable condition of human existence. We've done without it before and I don't see why we can't do without it again. We were born into this system which might create the illusion that no other system is possible. Maybe that's true but do you have any evidence to support that view?
Yeah, looks like nations actually evolved out of the exploitation of other's resources and the eventual establishing of imaginary lines that divided what belonged to one group and not to the other. I didn't say that any other system wouldn't be possible, I just think that groups that cooperate with eachother to maintain those borders and authority will do everything in their power to keep it that way.
I do think that, in a world were resources are not equally divided, and someone is going to have less than others, that conflict is inevitable, and with that, stronger groups will incorporate others and try to violently keep those under control.
I don't have any good evidence other than what happened in human history (which I don't have a very deep understanding of, so correct me if I'm wrong). Small self sustaining familial groups that lived in favourable areas such as along the Nile in Egypt or in Mesopotamia for agriculture had easier access to food. Animal and plant domestication started around then. More food meant being able to have more children and sustain an ever growing population. Bigger and richer groups began to incorporate other territories and groups for resources, strategic localisation etc, because people are greedy and sustaining an ever growing group becomes increasingly more difficult but just as necessary.
(Jared Diamond's book
Guns, Germs and Steel goes into this, there's even a documentary on YouTube in case you're interested and haven't watched it.)
Large territories with many people run into those sorts of problems while smaller groups will be easier to sustain, if they are "blessed" with resources, or the stuff on which it's all structured.
One scenario:
if conflicts are inevitable because of the above reasons and are indifferent to whether people choose or not, then wouldn't the democratization of some choices actually be more of a hindrance in some cases due to the lack of expertise (nothing to do with the intelligence of general populations, people just can't be expected to know everything and see the bigger picture if there is one) on how to best deal with a situation?
Maybe I'm just indoctrinated and don't see another logical sequence or conclusion...
QuoteAbsolutely! In some ways, that's the direction that Europe is taking. The Schengen Agreement could be viewed as a step in that direction. Leaving aside the Euro catastrophe (avoidable if our system weren't being run by bankers and their cronies) the general feeling is quite positive about the blurring of national borders within the EU. I'm particularly aware of this since I live in a border town. The difference between going from Italy to Slovenia and from Slovenia to Croatia is quite spectacular. This may be why when I have a similar discussion with people from around here there is general agreement on this view.
Ciao,
Attila
You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit?
@xSilverPhinx
I'm off to bed. Will reply tomorrow.
Boa noite.
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 19, 2011, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.
Then why not downsize them? Remember "countries" is their present form are a relatively recent phenomenon. Also the borders of every country have been drawn in human blood. You get truly ridiculous situations such as along the DRC-Angola border which cuts through the homeland of the Bakongo people. We now have the situation where families find themselves on different sides of the border which they have to cross in order to visit each other. And tell me who drew the borders and tell me in what sense does this work? If you prefer a European context (I won't bother with North America; it's too obvious) explain the logic behind the Slovak-Hungarian border which involves an ethnic Hungarian population in Slovakia, not at all to their benefit. And this works? Or explain to me why a Polish population speaking a Eastern Polish dialect is now found in Wroclaw, near the German border? This is just the tip of the iceberg in so far as the problems associated with our current administrative set-ups are concerned.
I have stated repeatedly that this is an empirical issue and I would happily be shown to be wrong. Are you willing to say the same? Or is this a faith-based issue for you both? Things are not always as obvious as they appear and at times the cleverest solutions to complex problems are not at all obvious at first glance. If you don't want to debate this as an open question, then I'll drop it and bother you no further.
Ciao,
Attila
Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!
I would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.
I think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.
As for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.
But I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.
And as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!
Me neither. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, if wrong I am. Your experiences and mine are quite different. I would conclude that they are simply unreliable indicators of human nature provided that you could assure me that you have spent a significant amount of time living in non-hierarchical societies. If you have then we'll drop the experience gambit altogether. If you haven't then that gap explains the difference in our takes on the subject. I have not provided any faith-based analysis. I have presented arguments from game theory and neurobiology. If you have presented evidence to the contrary I've missed it.
QuoteI would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.
Remember that the population of some small countries, Slovenia for one, are smaller than many large cities Tokyo, London, New York, Barcelona, Beijing, Milan, etc. Miraculously Slovenia has survived and even defeated a much larger military power (Serbia) in a 6 day war. I'm not claiming that the above mentioned entities are non-hierarchical but rather that smaller sized units can survive successfully in this world. Scale may be a factor but I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is no logical necessity for the existence of countries with huge populations. You can witness this today in the UK with constant pressure from at least a minority to split up the place into smaller units. Even within England, there is not a lot of love lost between north and south.
QuoteI think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.
Once again you present absolutely no evidence for your claims. You may well be right but then again you may well be wrong. If we're agreed in using an evidence-based approach to life then we need to find evidence for this issue. Classifying me as an ideologue seems to be tantamount to claiming that I am arguing for a given position. If you have another meaning for this term do me the service of informing me of it. I am not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I am under no illusions about the popularity of the views I'm expressing. But the position of atheists in general are rarely more than a small minority in many countries, which makes them no less valid You'll have to trust me that I am in absolutely no danger of that degree of self-delusion. The idea of an anarchist imposing anything on anyone is quite amusing. I'm not sure if you're serious or taking the piss. How many times do I have to say "I could be wrong about anything I state" before you take any notice. Let's just say you're preaching to the choir on that point.
QuoteAs for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.
But I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.
Ok, points of agreement between us. I may be imagining things in which case I apologise but I seem to remember that recently the current government recommended that people report their anarchist neighbours to the police. Does this ring any bells? Of course we don't need to look to far to find other examples. I was brought up in a "western country" with the secret policy making nocturnal visits to our flat. This was 60 years ago but I haven't seen any major improvements during my lifetime. My impression is that things are getting considerably worse since I was a kid. Putting Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) on a US no-fly list doesn't seem to denote the easy-going liberal democracy you're describing above. There are many, many other examples as I expect you know.
QuoteAnd as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.
On this point we disagree but as an anarchist I will die protecting your right to say it.
QuoteQuote from: Attila on October 20, 2011, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!
Me neither. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, if wrong I am. Your experiences and mine are quite different. I would conclude that they are simply unreliable indicators of human nature provided that you could assure me that you have spent a significant amount of time living in non-hierarchical societies. If you have then we'll drop the experience gambit altogether. If you haven't then that gap explains the difference in our takes on the subject. I have not provided any faith-based analysis. I have presented arguments from game theory and neurobiology. If you have presented evidence to the contrary I've missed it.
Personally, I don't think we should form one huge European anarchic state based on the results of game theory, unless that's what the majority of its population want. Then so be it, but a computer model is one thing, human society is another. I'm basing my thoughts on personal experience, which is all I feel I can go on. Obviously you have different personal experiences to me, and I respect that, and your opinion. To my knowledge no large anarchic states exist, so I think we have to just base our views on personal experience of humanity in general.
QuoteQuoteI would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.
Remember that the population of some small countries, Slovenia for one, are smaller than many large cities Tokyo, London, New York, Barcelona, Beijing, Milan, etc. Miraculously Slovenia has survived and even defeated a much larger military power (Serbia) in a 6 day war. I'm not claiming that the above mentioned entities are non-hierarchical but rather that smaller sized units can survive successfully in this world. Scale may be a factor but I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is no logical necessity for the existence of countries with huge populations. You can witness this today in the UK with constant pressure from at least a minority to split up the place into smaller units. Even within England, there is not a lot of love lost between north and south.
You're right, I'm not disagreeing with you on that one. I don't consider myself English or British in any way shape or form and would happily do away with the notion of nationhood.
QuoteQuoteI think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.
Once again you present absolutely no evidence for your claims. You may well be right but then again you may well be wrong. If we're agreed in using an evidence-based approach to life then we need to find evidence for this issue. Classifying me as an ideologue seems to be tantamount to claiming that I am arguing for a given position. If you have another meaning for this term do me the service of informing me of it. I am not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I am under no illusions about the popularity of the views I'm expressing. But the position of atheists in general are rarely more than a small minority in many countries, which makes them no less valid You'll have to trust me that I am in absolutely no danger of that degree of self-delusion. The idea of an anarchist imposing anything on anyone is quite amusing. I'm not sure if you're serious or taking the piss. How many times do I have to say "I could be wrong about anything I state" before you take any notice. Let's just say you're preaching to the choir on that point.
But you call openly yourself an anarchist, therefore I'm assuming you are arguing from a pro-anarchy position. Sorry if I've made a false assumption. You appear very intelligent, and I wouldn't suggest anything other. I enjoy reading your posts, you invariably have something interesting to say. I wasn't suggesting that yours views are wrong because you're in the minority, in my opinion it's often the the majority who are wrong. I just don't think you can create a large anarchic state if that's not what the population wants.
QuoteQuoteAs for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.
QuoteBut I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.
Ok, points of agreement between us. I may be imagining things in which case I apologise but I seem to remember that recently the current government recommended that people report their anarchist neighbours to the police. Does this ring any bells? Of course we don't need to look to far to find other examples. I was brought up in a "western country" with the secret policy making nocturnal visits to our flat. This was 60 years ago but I haven't seen any major improvements during my lifetime. My impression is that things are getting considerably worse since I was a kid. Putting Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) on a US no-fly list doesn't seem to denote the easy-going liberal democracy you're describing above. There are many, many other examples as I expect you know.
like I said I'm very anti-authoritarian myself, and quite anarchic. But compare your freedoms to what you'd have had 500 years ago in Italy. You'd have been burnt at the stake for saying what you've written on this forum.
QuoteQuoteAnd as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.
On this point we disagree but as an anarchist I will die protecting your right to say it.
:D thanks!
I really don't think our views are that far apart on this general question, it's just you have more faith in human nature than me and feel it could work on a large scale.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 19, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
Yeah, looks like nations actually evolved out of the exploitation of other's resources and the eventual establishing of imaginary lines that divided what belonged to one group and not to the other. I didn't say that any other system wouldn't be possible, I just think that groups that cooperate with eachother to maintain those borders and authority will do everything in their power to keep it that way.
I couldn't agree more. This is why if were are not happy with the status quo (a) we need to identify the problem clearly (b) figure out clever and practical strategies to bring about this change. I have no a priori limitations about what these strategies might be. Indeed, they could be of the gradual, step-by-step, barely noticeable type or they could be of the revolutionary type or a zillion other possible types. I just don't know.
QuoteI do think that, in a world were resources are not equally divided, and someone is going to have less than others, that conflict is inevitable, and with that, stronger groups will incorporate others and try to violently keep those under control.
History proves you right but.... look at today's news. I'm thinking of both Libya and Tunisia. I think the people of Tunisia are getting a bit fed up with more of the same. As the Who once sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" There maybe the teeniest move in that direction in the US with at least a small group realising that Obama is no different than W, Clinton, Old Bush, Reagan, Carter, ....
QuoteI don't have any good evidence other than what happened in human history (which I don't have a very deep understanding of, so correct me if I'm wrong). Small self sustaining familial groups that lived in favourable areas such as along the Nile in Egypt or in Mesopotamia for agriculture had easier access to food. Animal and plant domestication started around then. More food meant being able to have more children and sustain an ever growing population. Bigger and richer groups began to incorporate other territories and groups for resources, strategic localisation etc, because people are greedy and sustaining an ever growing group becomes increasingly more difficult but just as necessary.
Again we're back to human nature. Politicians and Clerics want you to believe what you've said: humans are basically greedy and need god or politicians (the latter being mysteriously immune to human nature). If this is indeed true, then I guess we might as well sit back and enjoy the ride because we are powerless (again this is under this view of human nature) to change anything anyway. I repeat this is the view that we are constantly fed by Religion and the politicians. This doesn't make it false but it does make it suspicious. Cui bono that we believe it. If we (me for example) don't believe it then we have two things to do: 1. Identify the problem. My humble attempt at this is my hypothesis that humans do not behave well in an authoritarian environment but they do behave well in an egalitarian environment where our counterparts are not obliged to "cooperate" (in the sense of game theory) with us but at least have the theoretical possibility of defection and vice versa. 2. Develop strategies that might reduce or eliminate the authoritarian aspect of our social/political system ("power to the people" and so forth). I have taken some small steps to ameliorate the situation in my own life which has resulted in some very satisfying successes. I dare not tell you about them lest people like TwoFewLions accuse me of imposing my views on you which, as an anarchist, I am loathe to do.
Quote(Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel goes into this, there's even a documentary on YouTube in case you're interested and haven't watched it.)
Thanks for that. I'll check it out.
QuoteLarge territories with many people run into those sorts of problems while smaller groups will be easier to sustain, if they are "blessed" with resources, or the stuff on which it's all structured.
1. As you well know living in South America, people blessed (maybe "cursed" is a better word) with resources rarely get to benefit from them under our current system. Do I really need to go into details? (I will if requested but I think you already of plenty of examples on your own).
QuoteOne scenario: if conflicts are inevitable because of the above reasons and are indifferent to whether people choose or not, then wouldn't the democratization of some choices actually be more of a hindrance in some cases due to the lack of expertise (nothing to do with the intelligence of general populations, people just can't be expected to know everything and see the bigger picture if there is one) on how to best deal with a situation?
I don't understand you here. Where do you think the expertise comes from? Are you claiming that any politician in any country at any level has any form of expertise beyond how to steal and screw the public. I've lived in a fair number of different countries and never come across a single politician worth his/her own excrement. Do you seriously think that Berlusconi, Merkel, Sarko, Cameron, Zapatero, .... have any expertise that could help the public in any way shape or form? I think I need some examples of what you mean.
QuoteMaybe I'm just indoctrinated and don't see another logical sequence or conclusion...
I see you as a decent, intelligent, friendly person. You are talking about my failure and certainly not your own. If you don't see another logical sequence then I'm doing a crap job of explaining so it's my fault not yours.
Quote
You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit?
Do you mean the European situation? Which aspect? I'm happy to elaborate but it's a wide area. Can we narrow it down a bit?
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
(1) I don't think we should form one huge European anarchic state based on the results of game theory, unless that's what the majority of its population want. Then so be it, but a computer model is one thing, human society is another.
(2) But you call openly yourself an anarchist, therefore I'm assuming you are arguing from a pro-anarchy position. Sorry if I've made a false assumption. You appear very intelligent, and I wouldn't suggest anything other. I enjoy reading your posts, you invariably have something interesting to say. I wasn't suggesting that yours views are wrong because you're in the minority, in my opinion it's often the the majority who are wrong. I just don't think you can create a large anarchic state if that's not what the population wants.
I've just repeated these two extracts of your post because I think we are reaching a common position with the above comments being the only obstacle to blissful harmony.
Starting with (1) I disagree on a number of points. a. I am not advocating a huge European anarchic state. I think that's a horrible idea whether the huge state is anarchic or not. I'm advocating a cooperative association of various self-governing population groups (cities, counties, regions, provinces, whatever). Just as the EU is an association of Nations at the moment (whether it's cooperative or not is open to question). I leave open the size of the units. b. I am just wondering how familiar you are with game-theory. I don't mean to cast any aspersions but if you haven't read The Evolution of Cooperation or at least some detailed synopses of it, you are libel to be working under a false impression. The results of the various experiments are
evidence. It simply shows that under certain specified conditions the optimal strategy, i.e. the one that offers the greatest material rewards, is that of mutual cooperation. This hypothesis which concerns human nature has empirical consequences and those consequence (at least some of them) can and have been tested and support this hypothesis. Your statement, "but a computer model is one thing, human society is another" seems to state that no scientific hypotheses can be made about human nature or that computer modelling is somehow disqualified as possible evidence for such hypotheses. Suppose the experiment had turned out otherwise? Suppose the results were that the most successful strategy for human groups was to always exploit and never cooperate. This aligns well with your position so would you still have such a negative impression of computer modelling? You seem to suggest that the status quo is the best system we can have and you will accept no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing I could offer that would cause you to change your mind.
(2) I expressed myself badly here. What I meant to say is that when we are all arguing an ideology. I am, you are, so is everyone else. I take a position, present some evidence that it enjoys at least a superficial plausibility and await contrary evidence. I don't think this means I'm forcing my theory on anybody.
Again, I am not now nor I have ever advocated creating a large state. Quite the contrary. The basic decision-making unit (if that's an acceptable definition of a state) should be pretty local. Anything beyond that involves a confederation/association etc. The basic unit can opt out of anything it's unhappy with. I don't know where this idea of imposing anarchism on a population comes from. It's rather the reverse: a population imposing anarchism on a small elite group of "leaders" who are always free to leave if they're unhappy.
Hope that helps clarify what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Attila on October 20, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
I've just repeated these two extracts of your post because I think we are reaching a common position with the above comments being the only obstacle to blissful harmony.
I'm always up for blissful harmony!
QuoteStarting with (1) I disagree on a number of points. a. I am not advocating a huge European anarchic state. I think that's a horrible idea whether the huge state is anarchic or not. I'm advocating a cooperative association of various self-governing population groups (cities, counties, regions, provinces, whatever). Just as the EU is an association of Nations at the moment (whether it's cooperative or not is open to question). I leave open the size of the units.
cool, I can totally agree with all of that
QuoteI am just wondering how familiar you are with game-theory. I don't mean to cast any aspersions but if you haven't read The Evolution of Cooperation or at least some detailed synopses of it, you are libel to be working under a false impression. The results of the various experiments are evidence. It simply shows that under certain specified conditions the optimal strategy, i.e. the one that offers the greatest material rewards, is that of mutual cooperation. This hypothesis which concerns human nature has empirical consequences and those consequence (at least some of them) can and have been tested and support this hypothesis. Your statement, "but a computer model is one thing, human society is another" seems to state that no scientific hypotheses can be made about human nature or that computer modelling is somehow disqualified as possible evidence for such hypotheses.
I'm not remotely knowledgeable on game theory. I just don't necessarily believe in dismantling and rearranging society based on a computer model from the 1980s. I don't think it can factor in all the complexities of a society with millions of people in, but that's just my opinion. I'm ignorant on the subject so I may well be wrong.
QuoteSuppose the experiment had turned out otherwise? Suppose the results were that the most successful strategy for human groups was to always exploit and never cooperate. This aligns well with your position so would you still have such a negative impression of computer modelling? You seem to suggest that the status quo is the best system we can have and you will accept no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing I could offer that would cause you to change your mind.
I don't know where you get that idea from, because it's not my position at all. I don't think I've ever claimed that I think exploiting people is better than cooperating with them. Whatever the results of a computer model were, I would have treated them as just that and not taken them too seriously. I don't live my life by getting a computer to decide what would be the best strategy for me to take. I just try to enjoy myself as much as I can, and hopefully not hurt too many people in the process. I also don't accept that the current model of society is just about exploitation if that's what you're trying to suggest.
QuoteI expressed myself badly here. What I meant to say is that when we are all arguing an ideology. I am, you are, so is everyone else. I take a position, present some evidence that it enjoys at least a superficial plausibility and await contrary evidence. I don't think this means I'm forcing my theory on anybody.
I actually don't feel I'm arguing from much of an ideological standpoint at all, I'm pretty apathetic on the subject and just giving my humble opinion. I like the idea of what you're suggesting (so if anything I'm in your ideological camp), I'm just skeptical over whether it could work
QuoteAgain, I am not now nor I have ever advocated creating a large state. Quite the contrary. The basic decision-making unit (if that's an acceptable definition of a state) should be pretty local. Anything beyond that involves a confederation/association etc. The basic unit can opt out of anything it's unhappy with. I don't know where this idea of imposing anarchism on a population comes from. It's rather the reverse: a population imposing anarchism on a small elite group of "leaders" who are always free to leave if they're unhappy
I was just questioning whether the majority would like to live in an anarchic state. If they would, then we should definitely give it a go and see what happens, it would probably suit me personally. But I do think that if the majority also wanted that, a democratic society should naturally move that way anyway shouldn't it? who knows, maybe it will.
Ok TFL, we're down to one point of difference! That's progress. I'll do some research for you to see if I can find a reasonably short summary of game-theory and it's application to problems like these. I can also give you some cases where I actually applied the theory and it worked as predicted (this one done on a micro level -- I'm only one person after all but then our discussion reduces to the issue of scalability and not to the inherent accuracy of the model. I think the respective wiki's for The Prisoner's Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma and The Evolution of Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_Of_Cooperation spare you the trouble of reading a whole book and are a reasonable introduction to the subject. You may not be that interested which is entirely understandable. What interests me does not necessarily interest anyone else. It this exhausts your patience I'm perfectly willing to call it a day. If you care to continue I'm more than happy to carry on the discussion. It's your call.
don't think we need to debate any further...I think you've converted me!
or more accurately I probably actually agree with what you were saying all along, I just misunderstood what you were proposing. If it's just a more cooperative less profit making way of living, and a lot less hierarchy, then count me in.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 06:50:04 PM
don't think we need to debate any further...I think you've converted me!
or more accurately I probably actually agree with what you were saying all along, I just misunderstood what you were proposing. If it's just a more cooperative less profit making way of living, and a lot less hierarchy, then count me in.
I am drinking red wine at the moment. In fact it's a cab-sauv from Garda, not bad for less than 2€ / bottle. I raise my glass to you in the spirit of fraternal cooperation and international good-will. Now that we're united, the forces of evil and repression don't stand a chance. ;D
Now for the chicken!
ciao
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Not ye....
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Not ye....
TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 01:07:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Not ye....
TLS! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.
:( they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 01:07:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Not ye....
TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.
:( they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!
Well.... c'mon out with it, Tank. Tell all. What were you missing? Nothing that you need down here I hope.
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 01:41:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 01:07:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 21, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
Not ye....
TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.
:( they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!
Well.... c'mon out with it, Tank. Tell all. What were you missing? Nothing that you need down here I hope.
A bloody great long queue at the moment. With eternity to work with efficiency is not a driving factor in Heaven and as all 'time and motion' experts go to hell it isn't going to get better in the short term >:(
OK. Bottom line: we're all better off here, at least for the foreseeable future, eh? Also why settle for novices when you can get experts down here?
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
things still look ok around here *phew* I'm looking out of the window and I can't see any seven headed dragons yet...
I can't wait to meet Jesus and give him a good slap, then tell him to turn the other cheek!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 11:33:50 AM
and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!
So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
things still look ok around here *phew* I'm looking out of the window and I can't see any seven headed dragons yet...
I can't wait to meet Jesus and give him a good slap, then tell him to turn the other cheek!
Arse or face?
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
things still look ok around here *phew* I'm looking out of the window and I can't see any seven headed dragons yet...
I can't wait to meet Jesus and give him a good slap, then tell him to turn the other cheek!
Arse or face?
:D Both!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 03:26:54 PM
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
things still look ok around here *phew* I'm looking out of the window and I can't see any seven headed dragons yet...
I can't wait to meet Jesus and give him a good slap, then tell him to turn the other cheek!
Arse or face?
:D Both!
People, please get focussed. This is no time to be pissing about. 15 minutes till the end of the universe. Ominous dark clouds are now forming over Gorizia. Our kitten is meowing and looking upward and her name is Moixa Mèu i Tarongeta (a name in the Balearic dialect of Catalan) so she ought to know what's coming.
Quote from: Attila on October 21, 2011, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 03:26:54 PM
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?
things still look ok around here *phew* I'm looking out of the window and I can't see any seven headed dragons yet...
I can't wait to meet Jesus and give him a good slap, then tell him to turn the other cheek!
Arse or face?
:D Both!
People, please get focussed. This is no time to be pissing about. 15 minutes till the end of the universe. Ominous dark clouds are now forming over Gorizia. Our kitten is meowing and looking upward and her name is Moixa Mèu i Tarongeta (a name in the Balearic dialect of Catalan) so she ought to know what's coming.
What a lovely name, I hope she's not too frightened by the appending apocalypse. Sometimes animals can sense these things. I've got my trusty fire extinguisher at hand for when it all kicks off. It may not be enough to put out the whole world's conflagration, but I'm hoping it might just keep me safe here in the office...
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 04:44:40 PM
What a lovely name, I hope she's not too frightened by the appending apocalypse. Sometimes animals can sense these things. I've got my trusty fire extinguisher at hand for when it all kicks off. It may not be enough to put out the whole world's conflagration, but I'm hoping it might just keep me safe here in the office...
As long as you're out of London you should be ok. If you're in London try to slide into North London (Piccadilly line is best) and head for Highbury. At all costs stay away from Finchley and the City (yeah, I know. That's obvious.)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 04:44:40 PM
Sometimes animals can sense these things.
My DeeDee is just washing herself and napping, as usual, so I'm quickly loosing confidence in seeing the world end today.
I've been extremely busy, so I'll reply to your post soon enough (though I really don't have much to add, I've reached the edge of my experience)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:02:54 PM
I've been extremely busy, so I'll reply to your post soon enough (though I really don't have much to add, I've reached the edge of my experience)
I'm sure you can quickly get some more in the next few hours or is this an arcane reference to Jimi Hendrix? ;) Nuf said. Mum's the word.
Quote from: Attila on October 23, 2011, 01:10:11 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:02:54 PM
I've been extremely busy, so I'll reply to your post soon enough (though I really don't have much to add, I've reached the edge of my experience)
I'm sure you can quickly get some more in the next few hours or is this an arcane reference to Jimi Hendrix? ;) Nuf said. Mum's the word.
Unfortunately not. I know you're dying to read it, eagerly anticipating and just can't wait for my response ;) but I've got an exam in the next few hours. I shouldn't even be here :-X
Jimi Hendrix? That name sounds familiar...
(I'm not exactly a cultured person :P)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
(I'm not exactly a cultured person :P)
I should certainly hope not. Good luck on the exam. Knock'em dead or break a leg or whatever the current phrase is. In Italian it's "in bocca al lupo" although I can't think of why.
Quote from: Attila on October 23, 2011, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
(I'm not exactly a cultured person :P)
I should certainly hope not. Good luck on the exam. Knock'em dead or break a leg or whatever the current phrase is. In Italian it's "in bocca al lupo" although I can't think of why.
Thanks. I certainly need all the luck I can get.
In the wolf's mouth? ??? Weird.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Jimi Hendrix? That name sounds familiar...
(I'm not exactly a cultured person :P)
You'll probably recognize the song even if you don't recognize the singer's name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFSaqFzSO8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFSaqFzSO8).
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 23, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Jimi Hendrix? That name sounds familiar...
Good Lord, that makes me feel old. Jimi Hendrix was ONLY the most creative rock guitarist that ever lived. Not necessarily the best (Eric Clapton was better) or the most technically proficient (Stevie Ray Vaughn and Eddie Van Halen were faster), but definitely the most creative.
Quote from: Attila on October 20, 2011, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 19, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
Yeah, looks like nations actually evolved out of the exploitation of other's resources and the eventual establishing of imaginary lines that divided what belonged to one group and not to the other. I didn't say that any other system wouldn't be possible, I just think that groups that cooperate with eachother to maintain those borders and authority will do everything in their power to keep it that way.
I couldn't agree more. This is why if were are not happy with the status quo (a) we need to identify the problem clearly (b) figure out clever and practical strategies to bring about this change. I have no a priori limitations about what these strategies might be. Indeed, they could be of the gradual, step-by-step, barely noticeable type or they could be of the revolutionary type or a zillion other possible types. I just don't know.
QuoteI do think that, in a world were resources are not equally divided, and someone is going to have less than others, that conflict is inevitable, and with that, stronger groups will incorporate others and try to violently keep those under control.
History proves you right but.... look at today's news. I'm thinking of both Libya and Tunisia. I think the people of Tunisia are getting a bit fed up with more of the same. As the Who once sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" There maybe the teeniest move in that direction in the US with at least a small group realising that Obama is no different than W, Clinton, Old Bush, Reagan, Carter, ....
QuoteI don't have any good evidence other than what happened in human history (which I don't have a very deep understanding of, so correct me if I'm wrong). Small self sustaining familial groups that lived in favourable areas such as along the Nile in Egypt or in Mesopotamia for agriculture had easier access to food. Animal and plant domestication started around then. More food meant being able to have more children and sustain an ever growing population. Bigger and richer groups began to incorporate other territories and groups for resources, strategic localisation etc, because people are greedy and sustaining an ever growing group becomes increasingly more difficult but just as necessary.
Again we're back to human nature. Politicians and Clerics want you to believe what you've said: humans are basically greedy and need god or politicians (the latter being mysteriously immune to human nature). If this is indeed true, then I guess we might as well sit back and enjoy the ride because we are powerless (again this is under this view of human nature) to change anything anyway. I repeat this is the view that we are constantly fed by Religion and the politicians. This doesn't make it false but it does make it suspicious. Cui bono that we believe it. If we (me for example) don't believe it then we have two things to do: 1. Identify the problem. My humble attempt at this is my hypothesis that humans do not behave well in an authoritarian environment but they do behave well in an egalitarian environment where our counterparts are not obliged to "cooperate" (in the sense of game theory) with us but at least have the theoretical possibility of defection and vice versa. 2. Develop strategies that might reduce or eliminate the authoritarian aspect of our social/political system ("power to the people" and so forth). I have taken some small steps to ameliorate the situation in my own life which has resulted in some very satisfying successes. I dare not tell you about them lest people like TwoFewLions accuse me of imposing my views on you which, as an anarchist, I am loathe to do.
Quote(Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel goes into this, there's even a documentary on YouTube in case you're interested and haven't watched it.)
Thanks for that. I'll check it out.
Don't worry, I don't see it as you pushing any ideology on me, I asked first didn't I? ;) And I find that I've always agreed with some of the points you're making.
QuoteLarge territories with many people run into those sorts of problems while smaller groups will be easier to sustain, if they are "blessed" with resources, or the stuff on which it's all structured.
Quote1. As you well know living in South America, people blessed (maybe "cursed" is a better word) with resources rarely get to benefit from them under our current system. Do I really need to go into details? (I will if requested but I think you already of plenty of examples on your own).
QuoteOne scenario: if conflicts are inevitable because of the above reasons and are indifferent to whether people choose or not, then wouldn't the democratization of some choices actually be more of a hindrance in some cases due to the lack of expertise (nothing to do with the intelligence of general populations, people just can't be expected to know everything and see the bigger picture if there is one) on how to best deal with a situation?
I don't understand you here. Where do you think the expertise comes from? Are you claiming that any politician in any country at any level has any form of expertise beyond how to steal and screw the public. I've lived in a fair number of different countries and never come across a single politician worth his/her own excrement. Do you seriously think that Berlusconi, Merkel, Sarko, Cameron, Zapatero, .... have any expertise that could help the public in any way shape or form? I think I need some examples of what you mean.
I wasn't really thinking of politicians when I mentioned expertise, they're...politicians and very good at...politics. I was thinking of the more administrative types, ideally not too involved in politics and lobbies. Again, it's worth stressing that I'm not saying that it's because I think that people are incapable of knowing what's good for them or what they want to an extent, but sometimes they don't and can't be expected to see the bigger picture and because of that, if left to their own devices, have a higher chance of choosing a solution that might adversely affect them in the long run.
QuoteQuoteMaybe I'm just indoctrinated and don't see another logical sequence or conclusion...
I see you as a decent, intelligent, friendly person. You are talking about my failure and certainly not your own. If you don't see another logical sequence then I'm doing a crap job of explaining so it's my fault not yours.
No, it's more because I really don't know enough to say, or have concrete experiences to lend faith to humans being able to pull it off at a larger scale. Your arguments for how people cooperate with each other are compelling though, I just think that the more people you have in a system, with more differing interests and personalities, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. IMO eventually at one point, some sort of order will have to be imposed on the system, from somewhere, or it might self-organise into some form of governmental body that will impose its authority to both keep its status quo and try and maintain some level of order.
Quote
You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit?
Quote
Do you mean the European situation? Which aspect? I'm happy to elaborate but it's a wide area. Can we narrow it down a bit?
ciao,
Attila
Based on what you were saying earlier about dialectal boundaries, I'm curious to know how things are in one country, Italy where many dialects co-exist. Does that strengthen your anarchism based on what you see and know?
I've reached a point where I don't really have anything good to add.
How would something like the law work? Is that considered to be imposed authority and therefore evil in an anarchist system?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 07:05:08 AM
I wasn't really thinking of politicians when I mentioned expertise, they're...politicians and very good at...politics. I was thinking of the more administrative types, ideally not too involved in politics and lobbies. Again, it's worth stressing that I'm not saying that it's because I think that people are incapable of knowing what's good for them or what they want to an extent, but sometimes they don't and can't be expected to see the bigger picture and because of that, if left to their own devices, have a higher chance of choosing a solution that might adversely affect them in the long run.
I'll jump in here after having chopped away some of the undergrowth of our previous posts. I'm perfectly happy to have a cadre of skilled people to deal with society's administrative and technical requirements. I don't see a problem with a group of smaller decision-making units cooperating and jointly hiring such people. They (the ones hired) would be responsible to those who hired them. So what they do would be under local control rather than answerable to a central authority.
Quote
IMO eventually at one point, some sort of order will have to be imposed on the system, from somewhere, or it might self-organise into some form of governmental body that will impose its authority to both keep its status quo and try and maintain some level of order.
I don't see why this would be necessary. Local groups are already able to look after themselves. There are no higher groups but rather coalitions of local groups collaborating on projects of mutual interest. After this is not so different from the
theoretical model of the EU. It has been corrupted by member states into some rather ghastly. This is predictable given the top-down structure of the decision making entities (the member-nations) but is
not a structural problem inherent in EU. It's the implementation rather than the model that is a fault.
Quote
You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit?
Quote
Do you mean the European situation? Which aspect? I'm happy to elaborate but it's a wide area. Can we narrow it down a bit?
ciao,
Attila
Based on what you were saying earlier about dialectal boundaries, I'm curious to know how things are in one country, Italy where many dialects co-exist. Does that strengthen your anarchism based on what you see and know?
[/quote]
Absolutely. There is virtually no feeling of Italian national unity beyond the "official" level. As in most countries of any size, the deepest dislike or even hatred in extreme cases are between the different populations grouped together against their will. If you take the pressure off and let decisions be made locally, then immediately the pressure comes off.
Quote
I've reached a point where I don't really have anything good to add.
How would something like the law work? Is that considered to be imposed authority and therefore evil in an anarchist system?
It boils down to what law. If people don't feel they're being screwed over they happily work together without much law. If they're are disputes they are typically adjudicated by a bunch of their neighbours. This I have seen in operation and even sat in on several sitting of this council (silently of course :) ). It does work very well.
That all actually makes a lot of sense...thanks, it's been enlightening.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2011, 05:10:24 PM
That all actually makes a lot of sense...thanks, it's been enlightening.
Thanks to you. You ask the right questions. I don't know if you're familiar with the
A Very Short Introduction They have them on a bunch of topics such as
Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. I'm reading the
Logic: A Very Short Introduction one now. It has a bunch of nice logical rebuttals for "proofs" of the existence of god. There's one on Anarchism too. I have pdf versions of them. Send me a pm if you'd care to get a copy of any of them.
Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu)
These things are very interesting. 8)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 01:08:12 AM
Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu)
These things are very interesting. 8)
Funny, I just discovered these TED videos. I've subscribed to them now with my trusty GPodder. I watched one about the Nordon bomb sight. I read about the SPE years ago. That's the one where the students were divided into prisoners and guards and the the "guards" started to act like absolute monsters. That along with the Submission to Authority experiment (subjects believing they were "shocking" actors with higher and higher voltages on the orders of someone in a lab coat. A bit more empirical support for the "authority is evil" position, eh? ;)
Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 04:37:58 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 01:08:12 AM
Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu)
These things are very interesting. 8)
Funny, I just discovered these TED videos. I've subscribed to them now with my trusty GPodder. I watched one about the Nordon bomb sight. I read about the SPE years ago. That's the one where the students were divided into prisoners and guards and the the "guards" started to act like absolute monsters. That along with the Submission to Authority experiment (subjects believing they were "shocking" actors with higher and higher voltages on the orders of someone in a lab coat. A bit more empirical support for the "authority is evil" position, eh? ;)
That's why I added the link. ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 04:44:09 AM
That's why I added the link. ;D
Tedtalks are fantastic, this is one of my favorites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE
Quote from: Crow on November 02, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 02, 2011, 04:44:09 AM
That's why I added the link. ;D
Tedtalks are fantastic, this is one of my favorites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE
Ah yes, I remember watching that one long ago. Crows are fascinating because...well...they're birds, and birds aren't expected to be as intelligent as they are. They play complex social games with one another, and some even claim that they have theory of mind, with is something usually more associated with mammals of higher intelligence.