Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Anarchist Wishes Absolute Control

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate.

However, a charismatic individual may be able to manipulate the masses.

If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 9:13:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 8:06:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want to govern society?

For the same reason he, or she, would not wish to be governed.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:00:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 9:13:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/12/2015 8:06:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want to govern society?

For the same reason he, or she, would not wish to be governed.

Wanting freedom isn't the same thing as wanting control. In fact, leadership in any form typically gives you less freedom to do what you want.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wanting freedom isn't the same thing as wanting control. In fact, leadership in any form typically gives you less freedom to do what you want.

If an individual's desires conflict with the desires of the collective, either the individual conforms to the wishes of society or he, or she, violates the law. Therefore, the individual is either cut off from society or he, or she, remains as an offender. If the individual is cut off in the form of exile, he, or she, is completely free as long as the individual lives in isolation. If the individual remains in society, either he, or she, conforms, legally, to the wishes of the collective or remains subversive.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:49:13 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Wanting freedom isn't the same thing as wanting control. In fact, leadership in any form typically gives you less freedom to do what you want.


If an individual's desires conflict with the desires of the collective, either the individual conforms to the wishes of society or he, or she, violates the law. Therefore, the individual is either cut off from society or he, or she, remains as an offender. If the individual is cut off in the form of exile, he, or she, is completely free as long as the individual lives in isolation. If the individual remains in society, either he, or she, conforms, legally, to the wishes of the collective or remains subversive.

I think everybody wants what's best for society. It's just that individualists know that individualism is what's best for society, while collectivist mistakenly believe that collectivism is better for society. for example, socialism actually hurts the economy and causes there to be more poor people who starve. (See breadlines in Russia, to learn about the effects of collectivism), while capitalism actually keeps the economy booming so that more people don't starve.

I think it's actually collectivist a that want to rule society. It's actually easier to rule a collective unit, than it is to rule a bunch of individuals that do what they want. I can't think of any other reason for collectivism, because obviously the policies are harmful to society. (See Nazi Germany, communism etc.)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:16:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think everybody wants what's best for society.

I'm sorry, but I believe that is a very naive statement and totally dismisses all the harm that has been inflicted by individuals on society all in the name of self-interests. As a dictator rules a nation, he, or she, rules through violence and force, not considering the will of the governed but one's own will.

It's just that individualists know that individualism is what's best for society, while collectivist mistakenly believe that collectivism is better for society. for example, socialism actually hurts the economy and causes there to be more poor people who starve. (See breadlines in Russia, to learn about the effects of collectivism), while capitalism actually keeps the economy booming so that more people don't starve.

Extreme individualism undermines the very fabric of society; it destroys social cohesion. It pits the will of each member against the wills of all others in society.

Extreme collectivism is detrimental to individuality; it sacrifices the individual on the altar of consensus. It takes its mission too far by removing all personal liberties and replaces them with the will of the collective. An absolute collective may only be accomplished by force; for in extreme collectivism, the will of the governed is not solicited; consensus is manufactured and agreement is fabricated. For, not all members of a collective are in absolute agreement at all times.

Extreme collectivism is absolute rule over the lives of its members, and extreme individualism is anarchy; neither philosophical system serves society, well.

I think it's actually collectivist a that want to rule society. It's actually easier to rule a collective unit, than it is to rule a bunch of individuals that do what they want. I can't think of any other reason for collectivism, because obviously the policies are harmful to society. (See Nazi Germany, communism etc.)

A collective is ruled by either one individual, as in a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, or a small group of individuals, as in a single-party system. The individual or individuals in charge do not tolerate dissent. Either the members of society agree with the will of one person, as in a dictatorship, or an elite few, as in a single-party system or they violate the law.

The dictator is not a collectivist because he, or she, does not consider the will of the collective but his, or her, will, alone. The dictator or absolute monarch is the perfect example of an extreme or an absolute individualist. A single-party system tends toward the will of the few; it is not absolute individualism because it serves a small collective, but anytime one tends toward itself, as in a dictatorship or a single-party system, by definition, the individual's or group's governance becomes more self-serving and therefore more individual.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:29:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 4:16:20 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I think everybody wants what's best for society.



I'm sorry, but I believe that is a very naive statement and totally dismisses all the harm that has been inflicted by individuals on society all in the name of self-interests. As a dictator rules a nation, he, or she, rules through violence and force, not considering the will of the governed but one's own will.

Yes, but he does so under the guise of collectivism. Again see Hitler, the Cambodian killing fields and the 100 million killed in the communist revolutions.

It's just that individualists know that individualism is what's best for society, while collectivist mistakenly believe that collectivism is better for society. for example, socialism actually hurts the economy and causes there to be more poor people who starve. (See breadlines in Russia, to learn about the effects of collectivism), while capitalism actually keeps the economy booming so that more people don't starve.

Extreme individualism undermines the very fabric of society; it destroys social cohesion. It pits the will of each member against the wills of all others in society.

Obviously, but typically the people who are most for free markets and individualism in government policy are also the biggest philanthropists.

Extreme collectivism is detrimental to individuality; it sacrifices the individual on the altar of consensus. It takes its mission too far by removing all personal liberties and replaces them with the will of the collective. An absolute collective may only be accomplished by force; for in extreme collectivism, the will of the governed is not solicited; consensus is manufactured and agreement is fabricated. For, not all members of a collective are in absolute agreement at all times.

We're on the same page, hopefully now you'll turn from this harmful philosophy. I'll read on to see.

Extreme collectivism is absolute rule over the lives of its members, and extreme individualism is anarchy; neither philosophical system serves society, well.

Well, that's retarded. Anarchism can't even work unless people unite over different things for mutual self interest.

I think it's actually collectivist a that want to rule society. It's actually easier to rule a collective unit, than it is to rule a bunch of individuals that do what they want. I can't think of any other reason for collectivism, because obviously the policies are harmful to society. (See Nazi Germany, communism etc.)

A collective is ruled by either one individual, as in a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, or a small group of individuals, as in a single-party system. The individual or individuals in charge do not tolerate dissent. Either the members of society agree with the will of one person, as in a dictatorship, or an elite few, as in a single-party system or they violate the law.

The dictator is not a collectivist because he, or she, does not consider the will of the collective but his, or her, will, alone. The dictator or absolute monarch is the perfect example of an extreme or an absolute individualist. A single-party system tends toward the will of the few; it is not absolute individualism because it serves a small collective, but anytime one tends toward itself, as in a dictatorship or a single-party system, by definition, the individual's or group's governance becomes more self-serving and therefore more individual.

Yes, unfortunately for you, every single instance of totalitarianism and harmful dictatorships have occurred under the guise of collectivism.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:30:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically you've gotten off topic as well. You state that an anarchist wants absolute control, which is retarded. They clearly want absolute freedom, which actually can't be achieved if you have absolute control.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:15:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but I believe that is a very naive statement and totally dismisses all the harm that has been inflicted by individuals on society all in the name of self-interests. As a dictator rules a nation, he, or she, rules through violence and force, not considering the will of the governed but one's own will.

Yes, but he does so under the guise of collectivism. Again see Hitler, the Cambodian killing fields and the 100 million killed in the communist revolutions.

However, a collectivist is a conformist; a dictator does not conform to the will of the collective in which he, or she, rules. The collective is forced to conform to the will of the dictator.

Well, that's retarded. Anarchism can't even work unless people unite over different things for mutual self interest.

Do you mean to say unless it becomes a collective?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:40:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically you've gotten off topic as well. You state that an anarchist wants absolute control, which is retarded. They clearly want absolute freedom, which actually can't be achieved if you have absolute control.

How can you have absolute freedom without absolute control? To be free is to not live under the yoke of other people; it's to be able to do that which you want without any restrictions. What society is going to allow an individual to do anything he, or she, wants? The individual would either have to disregard the will of the collective by becoming subversive or he, or she, would have to live in exile. In subverting the will of the collective, the individual is placing his, or her, will above society's. In order to sustain his, or her, seditious lifestyle, the individual would have to sacrifice the will of the collective to his, or her, own desires.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:35:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:40:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Basically you've gotten off topic as well. You state that an anarchist wants absolute control, which is retarded. They clearly want absolute freedom, which actually can't be achieved if you have absolute control.


How can you have absolute freedom without absolute control? To be free is to not live under the yoke of other people; it's to be able to do that which you want without any restrictions. What society is going to allow an individual to do anything he, or she, wants?

A proper society, will allow that. The exceptions would be to the individuals who are a sickness and should be separated from society, such as those who infringe on the freedoms of others (rapists, murderers, thieves etc.)

The individual would either have to disregard the will of the collective by becoming subversive or he, or she, would have to live in exile. In subverting the will of the collective, the individual is placing his, or her, will above society's.

Each individual knows better what he needs than society would be able to determine for him, so yes his needs would be above societies, and in this way everyone's needs would be met more easily. A society where everybody's needs are met is a superior society, am I correct?

In order to sustain his, or her, seditious lifestyle, the individual would have to sacrifice the will of the collective to his, or her, own desires.

This isn't true at all. Most healthy people desire what's good for his fellow man. If an individual doesn't, than he is a sociopath. Even the extreme individualist will donate to charity, bring his neighbor food when he's lost his wife, save a man from drowning and donate what they can afford to charitable causes. The reason an extreme individualist would do this, is because they feel good helping others and contributing to society. They also recognize the common sense principle of mutual benefit, and rational self interest.

I
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How can you have absolute freedom without absolute control? To be free is to not live under the yoke of other people; it's to be able to do that which you want without any restrictions. What society is going to allow an individual to do anything he, or she, wants?

A proper society, will allow that. The exceptions would be to the individuals who are a sickness and should be separated from society, such as those who infringe on the freedoms of others (rapists, murderers, thieves etc.)

Other than his, or her, own, the anarchist wants no control over himself, or herself.

Each individual knows better what he needs than society would be able to determine for him, so yes his needs would be above societies, and in this way everyone's needs would be met more easily. A :society where everybody's needs are met is a superior society, am I correct?

To put one's needs above society's is to say your life is more valuable, more meaningful, more significant than the lives of others.

Of course, most people in a free society, such as ours, would esteem themselves more highly than others. The United States traditionally has been a country that has stressed the virtue of individuality; independence is our hallmark.

I don't have a problem with individuality; I don't a problem with competition. The problem I have is with extremes, the person who says he, or she, is, merely, an individual and not a part of a collective, or the person who takes one or the other to its extreme, as in libertarianism or socialism. In this country we have two factions: libertarians and socialists. One has demonized the other. Why? Why are we fighting? We are not fighting over those things that tend toward the middle. We are fighting over those things that are on the opposite extreme of each other. Extremes are those things that cause division. Extremes are those things that are unsustainable.

Life tends toward the center of gravity; it reaches for equilibrium. Nothing is ever completely balanced; it for the most part deviates from its center. There is no striving, no contending, no activity in a perfect state of equilibrium. Life completely stable is death.
AureusRex
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:51:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:00:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/12/2015 9:13:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/12/2015 8:06:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want to govern society?

For the same reason he, or she, would not wish to be governed.

Wanting freedom isn't the same thing as wanting control. In fact, leadership in any form typically gives you less freedom to do what you want.

That is why politicians lead, while the powerful control them.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's the middle of the road fallacy S-Anthony. Extremes are dictated by the Overton window. I don't really see Libertarians or socialists as extremes. At some point socialism won't even be an extreme anymore, anyway, because the left is a little better at political warfare and therefore have a lot of control over the Overton window.
jimtimmy8
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 8:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This reminds of Bane, the Joker, and numerous other bad guys from Batman and other comic books who basically thrived on stirring up hatred of the flawed, but ultimately necessary, social order of the time.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 10:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's the middle of the road fallacy S-Anthony. Extremes are dictated by the Overton window. I don't really see Libertarians or socialists as extremes. At some point socialism won't even be an extreme anymore, anyway, because the left is a little better at political warfare and therefore have a lot of control over the Overton window.

Even though the range of the political spectrum changes with time, extremes are still extremes.

Comparatively speaking, even though most European countries are ruled by socialist parties and may be considered an extreme by a libertarian in the U.S., they are far from extreme in comparison to communist governments like China, North Korea, and Cuba.

The point I was trying to make is not extremes are unnecessary but they cause division, instability, and civil unrest in their present systems of government. It is true extremes are needed to destabilize the status quo, and destabilization is not necessarily a bad thing if it makes way for the establishment of a more agreeable form of government.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 1:07:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. (the creation of this narrative takes as its center the naturalization of contemporary social relations- a 'forgetting' of the violence inherent in its social order[sic]) As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. *valorizations of status and "stature" are generally linked I've noticed*** Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate. inadequacy, eh?

However, a charismatic individual fantasies endemic to our culture? may be able to manipulate the masses.

If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. ((de ja vu)) Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

--->
All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for the daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
*


*Gary Jules - Mad World Lyrics

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will (((StirneR?.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 1:30:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 1:07:08 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. (the creation of this narrative takes as its center the naturalization of contemporary social relations- a 'forgetting' of the violence inherent in its social order[sic]) As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. *valorizations of status and "stature" are generally linked I've noticed*** Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate. inadequacy, eh?

However, a charismatic individual fantasies endemic to our culture? may be able to manipulate the masses.

If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. ((de ja vu)) Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

--->
All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for the daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
*


*Gary Jules - Mad World Lyrics

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will (((StirneR?.

Welcome back. You should join a hangout, dude.
Tsar of DDO
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 7:50:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate.

However, a charismatic individual may be able to manipulate the masses.

It is true that money enables individuals or governments to wield power and that is why politics is such an expensive buisness. The main safegard is democracy since power is shared but even then forces can attempt to take control and manipulate policy. Oropoganda has enormous power to influence that is why politics must try to gain the channels of the media. Tribalism and nationalism are rife in the world and they seperate humanity dehumanising the 'others'.


If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:24:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is true that money enables individuals or governments to wield power and that is why politics is such an expensive buisness. The main safegard is democracy since power is shared but even then forces can attempt to take control and manipulate policy. Oropoganda has enormous power to influence that is why politics must try to gain the channels of the media. Tribalism and nationalism are rife in the world and they seperate humanity dehumanising the 'others'.

Altruism, or the ability to empathize, promotes a collective. However, the same natural tendency that allows us to relate with others also allows for distinctions among collectives. In other words, the more we identify or conform to a group, the greater significance we place on it, esteeming it above all else, and placing it in competition against others.

Altruism must be balanced against selfishness. We must not only see ourselves as a collective but also as individuals. In other words, we must retain a healthy dose of nonconformity. In seeing ourselves as a mere collective, suppressing individuality, we pit our national identity against those who differ from us, not tolerating difference among ourselves, we refuse to tolerate it among neighboring countries. It's our ability to allow dissent among our constituency that not only allows but appreciates difference in our world. A strong sense of nationalism is mediated by an appreciation of independent and diverse personalities.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have a good argument for balance, but I do not fear conformity since we are always diriven by survival of the fittest. What ever fixed system man invents men will get around that is why we can have the super rich in communist states. The main problem we have is weath inequality brought about by survival of the fitte st. The world can be viewed as a pyramid of wealth.The elite at the top the destitute at the bottom. It has always been that way.
Safa Motesharrei has a mathmatical model which he has used to study the breakdown of civilisation; it makes interesting reading. The math is way beyond me but fhe conclusions. are illuminating.
We have a problem our natures may bring progress to a halt we are not controlled entirely by logic.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 12:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have a good argument for balance, but I do not fear conformity since we are always diriven by survival of the fittest. What ever fixed system man invents men will get around that is why we can have the super rich in communist states. The main problem we have is weath inequality brought about by survival of the fitte st. The world can be viewed as a pyramid of wealth.The elite at the top the destitute at the bottom. It has always been that way.
Safa Motesharrei has a mathmatical model which he has used to study the breakdown of civilisation; it makes interesting reading. The math is way beyond me but fhe conclusions. are illuminating.
We have a problem our natures may bring progress to a halt we are not controlled entirely by logic.

Altruism tends toward collectivism, and selfishness tends toward individuality.

A person who values the acquisition of wealth above all else or is very materialistic seeks independence of means or personal responsibility at the expense of society. In fact, the individual does not believe he, or she, is accountable to society. The individual has an exaggerated sense of self-worth.

However, on the other hand, in a healthy society, contention for the concentration of wealth is a popular sentiment. Most people tend to favor a more even distribution of wealth.

The dictator or single party system uses this knowledge to its advantage, promising through socialism a fair and even distribution of resources.

An individualist fears socialism because the individual equates socialism with forced conformity. A collectivist fears individualism because he, or she, equates individualism with elitism. The libertarian elicits freedom and independence while the socialist desires a fair and just society. Freedom and equality are needed to make society whole.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 8:48:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are right but being right will not alter society. We carry an evolutionary baggage which partly at least dictates our behaviour. We can see the truth of this by looking at our history . I don't really know to what extent we control our own destiny. We have the intellect to see ourselves but have we the power to change?
Steven Pinker in his book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' believes we are becoming less violent but I think we are becoming more polarised into rich and poor.
At this moment in time we have an antibiotic crisis and we have the example of ebola to hammer it home but what are we doing? Gazing into the furtest reaches of the cosmos.or investigating the zebras stripes. We also have a serious climate problem to which we know the answers but they are unplalatable so we spit them out and pretend to care .
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are right but being right will not alter society. We carry an evolutionary baggage which partly at least dictates our behaviour. We can see the truth of this by looking at our history . I don't really know to what extent we control our own destiny. We have the intellect to see ourselves but have we the power to change?

Sometimes, I wonder if being right is about forcing change or simply noticing that which is or maybe both.

I believe reality or, at least, the bulk of reality gravitates towards its center. For the most part, history inches along in a cyclical motion. It swings away from its center for a time, only, to return and swing away in the opposite direction. In other words, I believe extremes compensate for each other. Extremes keep life in motion; complete equilibrium puts things at rest; a constant state of rest is death.

I believe we are both natural and nurtured creatures; we are born by Nature into a reactionary and responsive world. I don't believe we are completely dependent on fate. Even though our lives may be determined by forces greater than ourselves, we determine those things within our control.

Steven Pinker in his book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' believes we are becoming less violent but I think we are becoming more polarised into rich and poor.
At this moment in time we have an antibiotic crisis and we have the example of ebola to hammer it home but what are we doing? Gazing into the furtest reaches of the cosmos.or investigating the zebras stripes. We also have a serious climate problem to which we know the answers but they are unplalatable so we spit them out and pretend to care .

Polarization divides people, and division sets people against each other. It is true our history as a species has brought about the evolution, or development, of the individual. As we become more aware of ourselves as separate personalities, the pangs of separation are brought about through violence. As the child individuates, it is seen as an act of rebellion. He, or she, must differentiate one's will from that of his, or her, parents to be recognized as an "individual"; and, with disagreement comes conflict.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 5:19:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate.

However, a charismatic individual may be able to manipulate the masses.

If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will.

Absolute control over people who are out of control and wicked.

Make sure you finish the sentence please.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 5:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:20:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A society based, solely, on individualism with no centralized government would by necessity find order through capital or brutal force and most assuredly by both. As one wishes to consume both natural and societal resources, he, or she, would either acquire such resources by trade or through violence.

As an individual grows in stature, he, or she, must do so by the acquisition of wealth. Violence in and of itself is not sufficient; the individual would find himself, or herself, inadequate.

However, a charismatic individual may be able to manipulate the masses.

If the individual ascends to prominence through the use of capital, he, or she, becomes owner of both natural and human resources; a form of government is crafted by such a means. Naturally, more than one government would emerge and would either coexist through cooperation, compromising the power and authority of each or they would strive against each other for dominance. In wishing no government, at all, a stronghold quickly arises to fill its vacuum. Chaos must find order for any system to survive.

A person who wishes to enjoy extreme individualism in the midst of a collective, namely "society", covertly wishes to govern that society by absolute force of will.

Anarchists need organization and structure first before they can be effective.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 7:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Absolute control over people who are out of control and wicked.

Make sure you finish the sentence please.

The individualist is the one who seeks to be free from the control of others. He, or she, does not wish to adhere to the moral code established by society. The individualist wishes to do that which is right in his, or her, own eyes, alone.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:24:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anarchists need organization and structure first before they can be effective.

My point exactly, but the anarchist does not seek control for oneself but control for others. The individual is not free, completely, as long as others have the ability to control him, or her. The anarchist must free oneself from this possibility, and he, or she, apart from leaving the society, can only do so by suppressing the will of the collective.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:47:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 7:55:23 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Absolute control over people who are out of control and wicked.

Make sure you finish the sentence please.

The individualist is the one who seeks to be free from the control of others. He, or she, does not wish to adhere to the moral code established by society. The individualist wishes to do that which is right in his, or her, own eyes, alone.

The individualist is on a higher level of consciousness. True intellectualism is about raising yourself from the norm and pushing yourself to the limits and out of your comfort zone. The individualist is a free thinker. They are unorthodoxed and have the ability to identify what needs to change.