Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Do humans require a ruler

Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are Humans born programed to require someone, a king, a dictator, or a religious cleric to manage their lives and determine for them how they will live. It would appear that humans do require a authority figure to set the rules and limits on how they function who wish to live together in a society History has shown that people desire to have a leader over them as the Bible relates in the story about the Israelites who said... " Give us a King to lead us. all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "....... Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." Would it be possible to live together without a ruler in a society.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:33:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our freedom was limited to begin with. I mean we don't choose our DNA, where we are born, our family members, our schools, our teachers, etc.

The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom. That is often referred to as God.

As for humans, they are either ruled by other humans or their whims. However, what humans desire are often blocked/ruled by environmental factors or other humans.
I believe that it is agreed upon that human beings are social creatures. We feel weakness and loneliness, thus strength through societies and unities are formed and sought. Living in a group demonstrably requires an authority that gives order, prevents certain actions, and punishes. By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community since individuals can often differ. When the population is large, pure democracy doesn't work since there is no time to take the opinion and reasoning of every individual, and not all individuals are reliable and trustworthy (Drug-dealing gangstas making decisions for society, yikes), and a minority can disagree on the tenets and principle beliefs of the group (Neo-nazis and communists must put their belief on the sideline before becoming US officials, as that require pledge allegiance to the US constitution for example).
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:34:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:33:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Our freedom was limited to begin with. I mean we don't choose our DNA, where we are born, our family members, our schools, our teachers, etc.

These are not limitations on freedom, they're just elements of the reality we live in. Having green eyes cannot be a limitation of my freedom if every alternative would be 'equally oppressive' and its completely unclear who is performing the oppression.

The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom. That is often referred to as God.

If freedom is the abscence of oppression, and oppression is an act by one agent on another, then this argument is false, confusing freedom for ability, which implies that I am being oppressed when I can't run the 100m in 10 seconds. There's no entity actually performing any oppression.

As for humans, they are either ruled by other humans or their whims. However, what humans desire are often blocked/ruled by environmental factors or other humans.
I believe that it is agreed upon that human beings are social creatures. We feel weakness and loneliness, thus strength through societies and unities are formed and sought. Living in a group demonstrably requires an authority that gives order, prevents certain actions, and punishes.

Organisation does not necessarily rest on authority.

By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community since individuals can often differ.

If you assume that a society requires 'laws' then obviously you assume that society requires a ruler, which is an invalid argument.

When the population is large, pure democracy doesn't work since there is no time to take the opinion and reasoning of every individual, and not all individuals are reliable and trustworthy (Drug-dealing gangstas making decisions for society, yikes),

Democracy does not entail that there cannot be groups, representatives and experts. I don't think any anarchist has ever proposed that when a society makes a decision it should have to personally consult every individual, and that every person's opinion must be considered equally good.

and a minority can disagree on the tenets and principle beliefs of the group (Neo-nazis and communists must put their belief on the sideline before becoming US officials, as that require pledge allegiance to the US constitution for example).

Presumably you'd have to sideline your belief that there should be rulers if you're living in a society without rulers, or strongly consider leaving. If there is no compulsion, then the democracy is a decision-making process, not a justification for authority.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:34:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Our freedom was limited to begin with. I mean we don't choose our DNA, where we are born, our family members, our schools, our teachers, etc.

These are not limitations on freedom, they're just elements of the reality we live in. Having green eyes cannot be a limitation of my freedom if every alternative would be 'equally oppressive' and its completely unclear who is performing the oppression.

And yet, you agree that we are not free to change what our eye color is *rolls eyes*.

The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom. That is often referred to as God.

If freedom is the abscence of oppression, and oppression is an act by one agent on another, then this argument is false, confusing freedom for ability, which implies that I am being oppressed when I can't run the 100m in 10 seconds. There's no entity actually performing any oppression.

Here is the thing: philosophies that requires redefining words in a specific way so that they become vague or devoid of meaning kinda raises a red flag for me.

So people arbitrarily decide what is oppressive or what is unjust? A stingy richman can find it oppressive when there is social pressure to not engage in some 'unethical' economic practices or to help the poor. So limiting practices that are considered unethical or helping the poor is wrong? Does this take objectivity in evaluating what the word applies to? Does its meaning degenerate into nothing but a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity?

Please elaborate on overthrowing my definition by showing an incoherence and providing a better one, or discuss my statements with the definition I provided.

As for humans, they are either ruled by other humans or their whims. However, what humans desire are often blocked/ruled by environmental factors or other humans.
I believe that it is agreed upon that human beings are social creatures. We feel weakness and loneliness, thus strength through societies and unities are formed and sought. Living in a group demonstrably requires an authority that gives order, prevents certain actions, and punishes.

Organisation does not necessarily rest on authority.

An organization is an entity that has a goal. Surely some authority has set that goal, no?

By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community since individuals can often differ.

If you assume that a society requires 'laws' then obviously you assume that society requires a ruler, which is an invalid argument.

How so? For example insurrectionary anarchism would have a law (even if the community doesn't write it down) that no labor unions should be formed.

When the population is large, pure democracy doesn't work since there is no time to take the opinion and reasoning of every individual, and not all individuals are reliable and trustworthy (Drug-dealing gangstas making decisions for society, yikes),

Democracy does not entail that there cannot be groups, representatives and experts. I don't think any anarchist has ever proposed that when a society makes a decision it should have to personally consult every individual, and that every person's opinion must be considered equally good.

That is a republic (or "indirect democracy" to appeal through the word "democracy" despite few people having any worthwhile ruling power).
Representatives and legislative councils effectively fulfill the role of rulers.

and a minority can disagree on the tenets and principle beliefs of the group (Neo-nazis and communists must put their belief on the sideline before becoming US officials, as that require pledge allegiance to the US constitution for example).

Presumably you'd have to sideline your belief that there should be rulers if you're living in a society without rulers, or strongly consider leaving. If there is no compulsion, then the democracy is a decision-making process, not a justification for authority.

So those making the decision have no authority?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 2:11:38 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:34:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Our freedom was limited to begin with. I mean we don't choose our DNA, where we are born, our family members, our schools, our teachers, etc.

These are not limitations on freedom, they're just elements of the reality we live in. Having green eyes cannot be a limitation of my freedom if every alternative would be 'equally oppressive' and its completely unclear who is performing the oppression.

And yet, you agree that we are not free to change what our eye color is *rolls eyes*.

Is that because of some form of oppression? Also glad you've decided to set the tone for this conversation early you arrogant little c*nt... I mean really?

The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom. That is often referred to as God.

If freedom is the abscence of oppression, and oppression is an act by one agent on another, then this argument is false, confusing freedom for ability, which implies that I am being oppressed when I can't run the 100m in 10 seconds. There's no entity actually performing any oppression.

Here is the thing: philosophies that requires redefining words in a specific way so that they become vague or devoid of meaning kinda raises a red flag for me.

And how exactly have I done that? 'I'm not free to change my eye colour' is correct English but the way 'free' is used in that sentence makes no philosophical sense. There is no entity that prevents me from changing my eye colour.

So people arbitrarily decide what is oppressive or what is unjust? A stingy richman can find it oppressive when there is social pressure to not engage in some 'unethical' economic practices or to help the poor. So limiting practices that are considered unethical or helping the poor is wrong? Does this take objectivity in evaluating what the word applies to? Does its meaning degenerate into nothing but a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity?

I don't know how I implied that.

Please elaborate on overthrowing my definition by showing an incoherence and providing a better one, or discuss my statements with the definition I provided.


Already done.

As for humans, they are either ruled by other humans or their whims. However, what humans desire are often blocked/ruled by environmental factors or other humans.
I believe that it is agreed upon that human beings are social creatures. We feel weakness and loneliness, thus strength through societies and unities are formed and sought. Living in a group demonstrably requires an authority that gives order, prevents certain actions, and punishes.

Organisation does not necessarily rest on authority.

An organization is an entity that has a goal. Surely some authority has set that goal, no?

People are perfectly capable of deciding on goals without having gone forced on them.

By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community since individuals can often differ.

If you assume that a society requires 'laws' then obviously you assume that society requires a ruler, which is an invalid argument.

How so? For example insurrectionary anarchism would have a law (even if the community doesn't write it down) that no labor unions should be formed.

Presumably it isn't a law if there is no legislative entity, and if there is a legislative entity, then there is authority, that is what I was saying.

When the population is large, pure democracy doesn't work since there is no time to take the opinion and reasoning of every individual, and not all individuals are reliable and trustworthy (Drug-dealing gangstas making decisions for society, yikes),

Democracy does not entail that there cannot be groups, representatives and experts. I don't think any anarchist has ever proposed that when a society makes a decision it should have to personally consult every individual, and that every person's opinion must be considered equally good.

That is a republic (or "indirect democracy" to appeal through the word "democracy" despite few people having any worthwhile ruling power).
Representatives and legislative councils effectively fulfill the role of rulers.

Only if they have authority. Literally just representing people does not make you a ruler, it makes you, of course, a representative.

and a minority can disagree on the tenets and principle beliefs of the group (Neo-nazis and communists must put their belief on the sideline before becoming US officials, as that require pledge allegiance to the US constitution for example).

Presumably you'd have to sideline your belief that there should be rulers if you're living in a society without rulers, or strongly consider leaving. If there is no compulsion, then the democracy is a decision-making process, not a justification for authority.

So those making the decision have no authority?

What kind of anarchist would I be if I said otherwise? What kind of awful human being would I have to be to think that what I want should govern you?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 10:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"No humans requires a ruler who has a tape measure." - Some sh*T I just made up 2015.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 12:29:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 4:17:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 2:11:38 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:34:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:33:50 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Our freedom was limited to begin with. I mean we don't choose our DNA, where we are born, our family members, our schools, our teachers, etc.

These are not limitations on freedom, they're just elements of the reality we live in. Having green eyes cannot be a limitation of my freedom if every alternative would be 'equally oppressive' and its completely unclear who is performing the oppression.

And yet, you agree that we are not free to change what our eye color is *rolls eyes*.

Is that because of some form of oppression? Also glad you've decided to set the tone for this conversation early you arrogant little c*nt... I mean really?

Oppression as you defined it, includes an agent. You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate the existence of both: 1- injustice, 2- a sentient oppressor.

You seem to have confused me with someone who gives a damn. Please cancel my subscription to issues of Whiny Wo.

The one who has absolute freedom is the one who has no restriction on his behavior at all; the one who does whatever he wants. However, an action requires knowledge, will, and ability. The one who has absolute freedom must have complete knowledge, unparalleled ability and dominating will. And one cannot have the previously mentioned traits except if he was completely dispensed and self-sufficient, requiring nothing to learn, nor power to gain, since needing power or knowledge contradicts absolute freedom. That is often referred to as God.

If freedom is the abscence of oppression, and oppression is an act by one agent on another, then this argument is false, confusing freedom for ability, which implies that I am being oppressed when I can't run the 100m in 10 seconds. There's no entity actually performing any oppression.

Here is the thing: philosophies that requires redefining words in a specific way so that they become vague or devoid of meaning kinda raises a red flag for me.

And how exactly have I done that? 'I'm not free to change my eye colour' is correct English but the way 'free' is used in that sentence makes no philosophical sense. There is no entity that prevents me from changing my eye colour.

That is an inevitable result of redefining terms to lose their meaning.
So for statements regarding the topic we are discussing to be both correct English and coherent, we'll settle on my superior definition. You are free to suggest other definitions that are coherent.

So people arbitrarily decide what is oppressive or what is unjust? A stingy richman can find it oppressive when there is social pressure to not engage in some 'unethical' economic practices or to help the poor. So limiting practices that are considered unethical or helping the poor is wrong? Does this take objectivity in evaluating what the word applies to? Does its meaning degenerate into nothing but a logical fallacy of appeal to popularity?

I don't know how I implied that.

Then go ahead and bring me something that doesn't allow contradictory perceptions of what is unjust, or a basis for deciding what is just or not.

Please elaborate on overthrowing my definition by showing an incoherence and providing a better one, or discuss my statements with the definition I provided.


Already done.

You basically had "If the definition was Y, then your statement (which makes use of definition X) makes no sense because it contradicts Y". No, just no.

As for humans, they are either ruled by other humans or their whims. However, what humans desire are often blocked/ruled by environmental factors or other humans.
I believe that it is agreed upon that human beings are social creatures. We feel weakness and loneliness, thus strength through societies and unities are formed and sought. Living in a group demonstrably requires an authority that gives order, prevents certain actions, and punishes.

Organisation does not necessarily rest on authority.

An organization is an entity that has a goal. Surely some authority has set that goal, no?

People are perfectly capable of deciding on goals without having gone forced on them.

Then please explain to me how an organization can have no authority.
If someone does not agree with the goals, and yet is part of the organization, wouldn't he be forced if his proposal of shuffling priorities was rejected?

By the nature of laws, it can't be made by every single individual who forms a community since individuals can often differ.

If you assume that a society requires 'laws' then obviously you assume that society requires a ruler, which is an invalid argument.

How so? For example insurrectionary anarchism would have a law (even if the community doesn't write it down) that no labor unions should be formed.

Presumably it isn't a law if there is no legislative entity, and if there is a legislative entity, then there is authority, that is what I was saying.

So a insurrectionary anarchism society would not apply the law/rule to not have labor unions?
People do not decide that societies are ought to have no labor unions?

When the population is large, pure democracy doesn't work since there is no time to take the opinion and reasoning of every individual, and not all individuals are reliable and trustworthy (Drug-dealing gangstas making decisions for society, yikes),

Democracy does not entail that there cannot be groups, representatives and experts. I don't think any anarchist has ever proposed that when a society makes a decision it should have to personally consult every individual, and that every person's opinion must be considered equally good.

That is a republic (or "indirect democracy" to appeal through the word "democracy" despite few people having any worthwhile ruling power).
Representatives and legislative councils effectively fulfill the role of rulers.

Only if they have authority. Literally just representing people does not make you a ruler, it makes you, of course, a representative.

Does a representative have more power than the average joe? Yes or no would do.

and a minority can disagree on the tenets and principle beliefs of the group (Neo-nazis and communists must put their belief on the sideline before becoming US officials, as that require pledge allegiance to the US constitution for example).

Presumably you'd have to sideline your belief that there should be rulers if you're living in a society without rulers, or strongly consider leaving. If there is no compulsion, then the democracy is a decision-making process, not a justification for authority.

So those making the decision have no authority?

What kind of anarchist would I be if I said otherwise? What kind of awful human being would I have to be to think that what I want should govern you?

If it is the case that decision-makers have no authority, then what is the difference between someone making decisions and someone not making decisions, why make a distinction at all?

Also, since you concede any right to govern me, I shall use this opportunity to govern you (remember, since you can't govern me, you can't object to the dire consequences I can inflict upon your refusal). Bring candy before me slave!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 7:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 12:29:30 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Oppression as you defined it, includes an agent. You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate the existence of both: 1- injustice, 2- a sentient oppressor.

If you want to talk about 'not being free' in a political sense then you'll certainly have to identify in what way someone has their freedom limited by someone else. If you want to talk about 'freedom' in the sense that you can't do something, then it only makes sense when there is some obstacle interfering with what you would otherwise be able to do. There is no possibility of 'choosing my DNA'; I have no ability to do so which is being limited or restricted.

Then go ahead and bring me something that doesn't allow contradictory perceptions of what is unjust, or a basis for deciding what is just or not.

As far as I'm aware justification is something established, not assumed.

Then please explain to me how an organization can have no authority.
If someone does not agree with the goals, and yet is part of the organization, wouldn't he be forced if his proposal of shuffling priorities was rejected?

If he can't leave the group, then obviously, but as far as I'm aware groups aren't necessarily formed on that basis.

So a insurrectionary anarchism society would not apply the law/rule to not have labor unions?
People do not decide that societies are ought to have no labor unions?

If the reason that something shouldn't be done is only that you want it not to be done, then that seems to be authority, which anarchists aren't typically fond of. I think you're mischaracterising them anyway - don't they simply think that there are more effective ways of bringing about their ends than labour unions, or that labour unions are counterproductive?

Does a representative have more power than the average joe? Yes or no would do.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Someone who represents my interests to other has no more power than I do, but an 'elected official', who represents only the outcome of an election, does.

If it is the case that decision-makers have no authority, then what is the difference between someone making decisions and someone not making decisions, why make a distinction at all?

Because making a decision doesn't entail making a decision that governs someone else.

Also, since you concede any right to govern me, I shall use this opportunity to govern you (remember, since you can't govern me, you can't object to the dire consequences I can inflict upon your refusal). Bring candy before me slave!

Please explain why you have a right to govern me. Disobedience is the rejection of authority not the imposition of it. Doesn't it seem obviously absurd that you have the right to rule over me, or vice versa?
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:29:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:06:44 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Are Humans born programed to require someone, a king, a dictator, or a religious cleric to manage their lives and determine for them how they will live. It would appear that humans do require a authority figure to set the rules and limits on how they function who wish to live together in a society History has shown that people desire to have a leader over them as the Bible relates in the story about the Israelites who said... " Give us a King to lead us. all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "....... Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." Would it be possible to live together without a ruler in a society.

Ruler? Not needed. RuleS? Definitely. The closest thing we require is someone to make and enforce rules. A lawgiver isn't necessary, but a lawmaking body is.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:18:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Only the moral, ambitious and self sufficient don't require a ruler or governor. All the rest do, they will cannibalize each other.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%