Tell me what you mean by this? If you are drawing that from my statement that its mathematically impossible to not have a 1% you are not understanding me.
Statism more dangerous than Religion.
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
That's mathematically impossible, there will always be a 1% in any community of size.
That is the statement I was referring to. I cannot say that I understand what you mean in this case.
That's not tyranny. That's math. If you put 100 people in a room, one will be the tallest 1%. That's not despotism unless you're getting religious and calling the gods out for their evil ways.
Or that person is using the government to cut everyone off at the knees, in order to make himself even taller than everyone else.
Where do you see me offering simple solutions? Simple is pretending you can get rid of the state.
We agree, a problem we will always need to deal with, not run from.
I deny that. You have to credit the state with all the progress. Essentially the state is what makes it possible for humans to resolve disputes without deadly force. In the state of nature, there is only one way to resolve things, you kill your opposition. Regulations, laws power, authority all eliminate the need to kill and risk death when you poke your head out of your cave. Regulations make you free.
You're very romantic about nature. The law of nature is the strong eat the weak. The state stands between you and my appetite.
So now you're saying without the government, we will become cannibals? You've really gone off the deep end now.
Humans are brutal. And while its sort of sweet that you think we aren't, I'm not nearly as doe eyed a romantic as your team here. Rainbows require a storm and unicorns shit all over the place. The world is not as gentle and kind as your philosophy predisposes.
Government enables more brutality than there would be without it. I don't mind a storm here and there. Rain washes things. I'll take your word on the unicorns. I never said the world was gentle and kind. I don't think it should be. it's not as bad as you think it is though. In case you haven't noticed, the only species that's really damaging the planet is ours, and we have only been doing that since we invented government.
Soooo...you're saying that a large group of people on a small island would do no damage as long as they formed no government at all?
That's not what I said.
On that note though, there are too many people on this rock.
Oh come now. You're advocating lawlessness and calling that peace. In a natural state most posters here would be dead now. The amount of insanity in this thread is startling.
Am I wrong in saying that you are often critical of the 1% and their despotism?
I'm referring more to Universal law. If we need to eat, we gather food. If we need to seek shelter, we build it. Hurting people invokes, pain, so therefore that pain tells us that hurting someone is wrong.
It's putting down all the tools that weigh us down as humans, and focusing more on that actual living practices with respect for all. Not because we are forced to by laws that we create, enforced by people we cannot trust.
Instead we do things because it's what we need to do to survive. Living with the world, instead of trying to reconstruct it using an artificial and destructive system to do that.
That's a different argument about policy and degrees of inequality in power. That inequality exists in nature should be a self evident fact we all agree on. You can't think inequality is dependant on government to exist, do you?
The problem is your laws aren't universal and aren't enforced. Mankind figured out long ago it was easier to take your food than hunt for it himself. Absent government you would be a victim.
It isn't easier to take from others than to hunt yourself. Trying to take from others could get you killed. I hardly think there is anything tougher than that.
They are enforced, by nature itself. If we all understood life, and were not distracted by the needless devices that government traps us in, we would be able to live through and with nature in harmony. Animal colonies can do this successfully, so should we be able to.
I know that someone being taller than me, doesn't give them the right to get away with murder. Nor would it in my world.
I know I'm just echoing Natural (who is completely right in this case) but I challenge anyone to name one time in the recorded history of the world where "Statism" wasn't a fact?
Call it what it is, civilization! And I support the idea.
30,000 years ago I was a part of a tribe of twenty people who decided that this one old guy among us knew things and we put him in charge! We listened when he said, "Share the meat!"
10,000 years ago I was a part of a tribe of 200 people that gathered in the summers and dispersed in the winters. We'd learned to grow food, but game was easier to hunt in the winter if we spread out and used more land. Our leaders told us when to do this.
I could go on. But exactly what alternative has there ever been? I like that we can speak, write, that even our body language is complex! Why did we evolve this way if not to work together?
Call it what it is, civilization! And I support the idea.
30,000 years ago I was a part of a tribe of twenty people who decided that this one old guy among us knew things and we put him in charge! We listened when he said, "Share the meat!"
10,000 years ago I was a part of a tribe of 200 people that gathered in the summers and dispersed in the winters. We'd learned to grow food, but game was easier to hunt in the winter if we spread out and used more land. Our leaders told us when to do this.
I could go on. But exactly what alternative has there ever been? I like that we can speak, write, that even our body language is complex! Why did we evolve this way if not to work together?
In case you haven't noticed, the only species that's really damaging the planet is ours, and we have only been doing that since we invented government.
Last edited:
If humans were different, they would be different. It sounds like you have a fine plan for a hive of drones. Maybe thats your real goal.
That's just it, it really would in your world. There would be no authority to stop it or punish it. When the lion eats his cubs, you know what happens? He gets sex. Thats your natural world.
No. High populations of many species have indeed hurt the environment. The fact is, our species grew out of control during and after the industrial revolution. Not at the "dawn" of civilization. And even if this civilization was wrong? What's the alternative?
