Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

In a society where no one can harm anyone

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

By "cause harm" do you include infringing on property rights (like stealing someone's property or blowing up their house)?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:15:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:11:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

By "cause harm" do you include infringing on property rights (like stealing someone's property or blowing up their house)?

Is it causing harm in our society now? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:16:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

I didn't quite grasp your jump from "cannot cause any harm" to "cannot advance on any merit".
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:15:13 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:11:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

By "cause harm" do you include infringing on property rights (like stealing someone's property or blowing up their house)?

Is it causing harm in our society now? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

Last question (this is just so I know we're on the same page) is there a threat of outside communities causing harm?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:25:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:22:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:15:13 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:11:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

By "cause harm" do you include infringing on property rights (like stealing someone's property or blowing up their house)?

Is it causing harm in our society now? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

Last question (this is just so I know we're on the same page) is there a threat of outside communities causing harm?

Since no individual can harm any individual, there's no question of a community of individuals harming a community of individuals.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:28:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:16:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

I didn't quite grasp your jump from "cannot cause any harm" to "cannot advance on any merit".

Well, because most of the time, to advance, you have to hurt at least one person. It's really not possible to have a successful society without having some harm. What about slackers? We can't have them come to harm, so therefore, we have to help them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:28:43 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:16:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

I didn't quite grasp your jump from "cannot cause any harm" to "cannot advance on any merit".

Well, because most of the time, to advance, you have to hurt at least one person. It's really not possible to have a successful society without having some harm. What about slackers? We can't have them come to harm, so therefore, we have to help them.

How will the slackers come to harm, if you don't help them?

Since no one can harm anyone, "not helping slackers" will also not cause harm to them. You just cannot cause harm to anyone, no matter what you do, or don't.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:37:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:32:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:28:43 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:16:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

I didn't quite grasp your jump from "cannot cause any harm" to "cannot advance on any merit".

Well, because most of the time, to advance, you have to hurt at least one person. It's really not possible to have a successful society without having some harm. What about slackers? We can't have them come to harm, so therefore, we have to help them.

How will the slackers come to harm, if you don't help them?

Since no one can harm anyone, "not helping slackers" will also not cause harm to them. You just cannot cause harm to anyone, no matter what you do, or don't.

Well, wouldn't, technically, you be causing harm to them by not helping them? I dunno, to many variables.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:45:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:28:43 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:16:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

I didn't quite grasp your jump from "cannot cause any harm" to "cannot advance on any merit".

Well, because most of the time, to advance, you have to hurt at least one person. It's really not possible to have a successful society without having some harm. What about slackers? We can't have them come to harm, so therefore, we have to help them.

But if slacking causes harm, then no one would slack.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 6:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, to start off, if harm to others was not a problem, then the original city-states would not have a warrior class or any form of standing army. If no harm happens between people, the "policing of free-riding" function of government also loses purpose past being a mechanism for efficient division of labor.

This would make the cost of transferring between communities or outside of communities in general much lower. You would expect more of a "vote with your feet" mentality where governments that do not make their people happy will lose inhabitants.

You wouldn't get any equivalent to the feudal age, so the real imbalances of power will come from differential ownership of property not sovereignty. In order to argue that no harm comes to anyone, we have to assume resource accumulation is not mutually exclusive. Meaning, either you eat the food or I eat food you would eat. Instead, it's "I eat my food and you eat yours."

That's just what I have so far. It's an interesting thought experiment.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 10:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The concept of "harm" is subjective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 11:27:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
i'm not sure, but i think this idea might require the existence of unlimited resources, and in that situation there would almost certainly be no need for a political system of any kind.

as soon as you introduce a limit on resources, you introduce the ability of one person to consume something at the expense of another person's ability to consume it, thus introducing harm.

and then if you look at it more deeply, it starts to appear incoherent.... if i say something cruel does it not hurt another person's feelings? what if i am in love with someone and they don't reciprocate my feelings... doesn't that constitute a sort of harm? everyone would either have to feel identically towards everyone else, or they would have to have no feelings/desires towards their fellow humans at all. any desire you introduce has the possibility of not being reciprocated, unless all desires are automatically reciprocated by fiat. i don't think people could interact under the circumstances that you've laid out.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:48:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:37:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Well, wouldn't, technically, you be causing harm to them by not helping them?

No. In the same way that you aren't the cause of starving children in Africa dying by not donating money to aid organizations.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 2:04:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 11:27:53 PM, belle wrote:
i'm not sure, but i think this idea might require the existence of unlimited resources, and in that situation there would almost certainly be no need for a political system of any kind.

as soon as you introduce a limit on resources, you introduce the ability of one person to consume something at the expense of another person's ability to consume it, thus introducing harm.

and then if you look at it more deeply, it starts to appear incoherent.... if i say something cruel does it not hurt another person's feelings? what if i am in love with someone and they don't reciprocate my feelings... doesn't that constitute a sort of harm? everyone would either have to feel identically towards everyone else, or they would have to have no feelings/desires towards their fellow humans at all. any desire you introduce has the possibility of not being reciprocated, unless all desires are automatically reciprocated by fiat. i don't think people could interact under the circumstances that you've laid out.

You mean, they couldn't interact the way they do NOW. Since it's a hypothetical, you have to come up with a way they WOULD interact :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 4:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:04:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

Hmm, I would say Communist, because no one could advance on any merit, nothing would get done really, and there would be no competition to advance society.

You've merely expressed a perverse understanding of communism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:38:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is a political system not a system of how to prevent harm by causing harm? What political system could develop where neither there be harm to stop nor harm to be used in stopping it? All that would be left is organization, which, of course, leaves no room for politics.

Needless to say, this would be a world of utmost harmony. Is there any sane person who could speak ill of such a wonderful idea? Perhaps not. But I certainly would. In a world that leaves suffering behind, where would it's purpose go?

A perfect world is a great idea to fight for in a world that is far from it. But to actually have it...what would the point be? No troubles? No challenges? No big bad guys to overcome? God, how boring.

The day we have a perfect world is the day the villain gains virtue. The day I would fight for our right to suffer.

AC Xa T fM no T asaa MU loLP aRP far g He CaN slat a TALL baqr HAPp.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Samael138
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 3:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No human is perfect. Therefore we lack the ability to create perfection because no matter how much we think of a perfect world and how to make it, it's just not feasible because like us it would be flawed. Besides perfection would be utterly boring. If you are familiar with the story of Adam and eve we had perfection. Then an outside source (the snake) temped eve into doing something she knew was wrong thus causing her to go and tempt Adam. My point with all that is even with perfection we still have the desire to learn and explore, in perfection we did the only thing we knew was bad and not aloud. And you can't blame it on being tempted because if I prompt and tempt you to rob a bank would you do it even though you know its wrong? All that story shows is our inability handle perfection we should strive for it nonetheless. But of course that's only if you believe those kind of stories.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 2:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:02:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
That is, it's naturally impossible for anyone to cause any sort of harm to anybody else, in the same way that it's naturally impossible for anyone to "see the future".

what kind of political system would develop? If at all, a political system develops. Or will it not?

If nobody can cause any harm to one another, I would bet this society would be anarchist. If there is no need to protect people from other people, there would be no need for government. Why would people who don't need protection instate a governing body to tell them what to do? Isn't that the sacrifice? We give up our personal freedoms for protection from the government? Anyway, if I lived in such a place, I would probably demand anarchism.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.