A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

However, in this particular case, communists, socialists and other leftists- who tend to favour egalitarian beliefs- largely oppose Social Darwinism, an ideology given, as it is, to rationalise social and economic inequalities and to favour anti-solidaritarian policies.

Well I don't think that Communists neccessarily even agree on something as simple as that because the USSR, who considered themselves communists (I consider them authoritarian communists) definently allowed and supported drastic inequality to occur between government and populace.

 

[BasketCase]

What I said was that people generally won't work against their will if they aren't forced to.

I know. I wasn't talking to you. I specifically addressed my post to ALL the Communists in here.

Actually the Milgram experiments proove what I already agree to, that people can be persuaded by authority to do wrong things. If it were to similate an actual society such as the one I described, the experiment would have to allow the 35% of the people who thought it was wrong to communicate with the 65% who don't and show them that what they are doing is not right. The experiment did not show this.

Yes, it did. Milgram was already WAY ahead of you, man. I already said (though I forget where, so I understand if you missed it) that Stanley Milgram already addressed this complaint and many others.

In post-experiment interviews, most of the test subjects said--without being asked--that they already knew what they had been doing was wrong. The test subjects were aware they were (or so they thought!) shocking an innocent person, and they knew it was wrong. But they just couldn't bring themselves to stop.

Point proven: humans instinctively obey authority figures.

The only way people could be more productive is if they forced/bribed others into working against their will which is not the right of any human.

Increasing productivity by force has already been tried many times. The practice (also known as slavery) has been shown to be a complete failure.

But I already showed long ago that some level of force/bribe is inevitable. If you take away government and pressure from other people, then the authority forcing you to do work becomes your own stomach. Either you find food, however much work it takes, or you suffer increasingly unbearable pain. Then your limbs start to waste away and you die a slow and horrible death.

So go to hell. I like my system a lot better than that.

 

[greenpeace]

I know. I wasn't talking to you. I specifically addressed my post to ALL the Communists in here.

Well than do you agree with that stance?

Yes, it did. Milgram was already WAY ahead of you, man. I already said (though I forget where, so I understand if you missed it) that Stanley Milgram already addressed this complaint and many others.

In post-experiment interviews, most of the test subjects said--without being asked--that they already knew what they had been doing was wrong. The test subjects were aware they were (or so they thought!) shocking an innocent person, and they knew it was wrong. But they just couldn't bring themselves to stop.

Point proven: humans instinctively obey authority figures.

What about the 35% of the people who didn't fully obey though? What if they were allowed to communicate with those other 65%, as they would be with a real society? Do you think a group of 40 that were collectivly told to continue to shock the innocent might not have been so obediant?

Increasing productivity by force has already been tried many times. The practice (also known as slavery) has been shown to be a complete failure.

Are you trying to miss my point? Of course people are going to work against their direct will in order to provide food, nature forces people to work against their will. However, I'm saying people shouldn't be punished for not working against their will by society, because under Capitalism you will loose every thing you own and be starved to death if you can't find work that you are willing to do unless you work undesirable jobs and that is very forceful.

But I already showed long ago that some level of force/bribe is inevitable. If you take away government and pressure from other people, then the authority forcing you to do work becomes your own stomach. Either you find food, however much work it takes, or you suffer increasingly unbearable pain. Then your limbs start to waste away and you die a slow and horrible death.

I'm saying that your stomach and other vitals and you should be the only authority over you, unless you do harm to someone in which case the communal decisions of a directly democractic process is an appropriate authority.

So go to hell. I like my system a lot better than that.

This is what people do when they've lost the argument.

 

[BasketCase]

Okay, Greenpeace, this time I am talking directly to you, lemme just get that straight from the get-go.

I just realized that I'd already stumbled across the root of your objections to capitalism without realizing it:

In terms of the economy, I will agree that this society may not be as productive because nobody (practically) is going to want to work their entire life doing things against their will (unless robots take over all manual production, in which case it would be fairly equal in production) even though that tends to be more "productive" as in the case of Capitalism. However, it will be able to provide the basics because if it didn't people would be starving/dehydrated, etc. and people don't like that (we can call it "natural incentive" which would be your "material" carrot/cake/stick whatever). Everything else will come about because people want it to occur so much that their willing to do things they normally wouldn't do to accomplish it (so they have a "net will"). The difference between this and Capitalism is that the goal to be accomplished is something other than not starving to death (unless it is farming of course- nothing can prevent that).

I said in a previous post that the above incentive already exists in capitalist societies. I said it, without even realizing the true significance of what I'd said.

That highlighted sentence just above is one of the most common and most basic objections Communists raise against capitalism: human social obligations towards other humans. In other words, it seems, doing the right thing isn't enough--Communists want people to be doing the right thing for the right reasons, money being one of the "wrong" reasons.

The catch is that this moral obligation is not exclusive to Communism. It is not a specific hallmark of Communism. A lot of Commies like to point at people/societies that do practice it, and go "see? there's Communism in action!"--but when they do that, it's a well-concealed lie. Anybody can practice the personal obligations you describe, in any society--even a totalitarian state. Yes, in a capitalist state, self-preservation or money are possible reasons to help other people, but they are not the only ones. Self-preservation and money need to be included in the list in order to motivate selfish and heartless people to contribute to society. And don't get any fancy illusions--just presenting selfish and heartless people with a Communist state is not going to convince them to change their ways.

And I've already shown that people do feel and act on their obligations towards their fellow people, extensively, in capitalist societies. People put a great deal of effort into helping others--for a reason besides the desire to avoid starving to death.

By the way: you did say that the goal to be accomplished should be something besides starving to death--but you never actually said what it was. What is it?

But I have to say, speculating on whether something will work or not is kind of meaningless when you could put into practice.

I know. I have never speculated on whether Communism can work--I have presented extensive evidence that Communism cannot be put into practice.

 

[BasketCase]

Side note, Greenpeace: "go to Hell" is not something people do when they've lost an argument.

What people do is call other people idiots, or go "that's it, I'm through trying to reason with this guy", or otherwise insult an opponent's intelligence. That's something you're not going to see me doing.

The IQ's of my opponents are irrelevant. If a complete moron told me Communism is a failure, he would be right regardless of his IQ. If a person is a low-watt bulb, calling him a low-watt bulb is never necessary.

The burning question in your head right now is probably something along the lines of "did BasketCase just call me a low-watt bulb???" I could say "no", but maybe I'm lying......

 

[Ultima_Thule]

I consider myself a pseudo-communist. Well, capitalism, while it did make the nation great, does not promote equal living. The rich get rich at the expense of the poor. HOWEVER in communism, the wealth is redistributed to everyone. classes are eliminated to a certain point that way. I can say there are some things in the communist doctrine I do not agree with, but, if the doctrine was tweaked hear and there....communism could work.

 

[BasketCase]

What about the 35% of the people who didn't fully obey though? What if they were allowed to communicate with those other 65%, as they would be with a real society? Do you think a group of 40 that were collectivly told to continue to shock the innocent might not have been so obediant?

No, I do not. If the 65% already knew it was wrong and did it anyway, there's no help for them.

Out here in the real world, the 35% are already yelling constantly at the 65% about their moral failures--whatever those moral failures may be. The 35% are failing constantly.

Effortless segue to Iraq: George Bush was able to order the entire U.S. military to wipe Iraq off the map. The 35% were allowed to (and in fact did) tell our troops they were wrong to invade Iraq. The invasion happened anyway.

There's an even bigger example you should already have thought of. I'm gonna leave you to figure it out for yourself. Here's a hint: it has Nazis in it.

Are you trying to miss my point? Of course people are going to work against their direct will in order to provide food, nature forces people to work against their will. However, I'm saying people shouldn't be punished for not working against their will by society, because under Capitalism you will loose every thing you own and be starved to death if you can't find work that you are willing to do unless you work undesirable jobs and that is very forceful.

I'll answer that once you straighten the following out for me:

I'm saying that your stomach and other vitals and you should be the only authority over you, unless you do harm to someone in which case the communal decisions of a directly democractic process is an appropriate authority.

If your stomach and your vitals are the only authority over you, then guess what happens if you don't find work? You lose everything you own and starve to death. This contradiction needs to be resolved.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I do not. If the 65% already knew it was wrong and did it anyway, there's no help for them.

But modified versions of the Milgram experiment, in which two actors sit alongside the subject and one or both refuse the scientist's demands, have resulted in significantly lower rates of compliance.

Not that I'm going to re-enter this argument, but I thought it was a point worth making.

 

[BasketCase]

That effect (plain old basic groupthink) was already well-known long before Milgram arrived on the scene. None of us wants to be the first to stick his neck out. The basic theme remains unchanged: the test subject wants someone else to take the lead. In your example, Traitorfish, the actor who sits next to the test subject and refuses to continue the experiment steals the crown--he becomes the leader.

Here's another one: yet another variant Milgram did was to have two actors in the leader role. At the beginning, both "leaders" were telling the test subject to push the shock button. Then, halfway through the experiment, the two leaders start to disagree about whether the experiment should continue (this argument, of course, is scripted).

Most of the test subjects (I forget the exact percentage) stopped immediately at the point of disagreement.


Milgram's final conclusion stands: authority is one of our most powerful motivators.

 

[BasketCase]

Greenpeace, how about we skip right to the chase: what should be the final authority over a person?

 

[greenpeace]

Spoiler :

No, I do not. If the 65% already knew it was wrong and did it anyway, there's no help for them.

Out here in the real world, the 35% are already yelling constantly at the 65% about their moral failures--whatever those moral failures may be. The 35% are failing constantly.

Effortless segue to Iraq: George Bush was able to order the entire U.S. military to wipe Iraq off the map. The 35% were allowed to (and in fact did) tell our troops they were wrong to invade Iraq. The invasion happened anyway.

There's an even bigger example you should already have thought of. I'm gonna leave you to figure it out for yourself. Here's a hint: it has Nazis in it.

Those are very different societies in which there is an extremely small group of people who rule over the masses. I will definently agree than in that case thigns will get ugly. The concern in regards to the society I described is that it it is possible for people to attempt to take power over others, in which case it is important to see whether or not they would be successful (I predict they wouldn't be because of a combination of anti-authoritarian culture and lack of logical reason).

I'll answer that once you straighten the following out for me:

If your stomach and your vitals are the only authority over you, then guess what happens if you don't find work? You lose everything you own and starve to death. This contradiction needs to be resolved.

Thats not something any society can possibly solve, people will always be hungry when they don't have food. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be used as a threat.

Cutting to the chase...
Well ideally there would be no need for authority at all (were authority is defined as a person or group that offers positive/negative incentive for others to perform tasks). Of course, in real life this is not exactly possible (nor desirable) so there are two important exceptions. The first exception is that there needs to be an authority to stop and prevent people from harming each other. As I have previously stated the most competent authority to deal with this are communal decisions via an open democratic process that involves all that are willing to participate (I can explain this further upon request). Of course, intnetional harming (I defined harm right? if not*) can not be done upon anyone by authority (or anyone else) unless it is absolutely neccessary (like putting a crazed psychopath in a restrained area to prevent him/her from attacking). The second exception is that there needs to be an authority (which must be the directly democratic communal decisions) to insure that no other authorities exist. Of course, this will naturally be within reason, for things like laughter are perfectly acceptable even though they do offer incentive.

* harm-offering positive or negative incentives to persuade someone to perform tasks, to cause physical/emotional/mental damage, or to not provide neccessary vital support to a person who cannot sufficiently support themselves when you can easily provide (like not feeding a baby).

 

[Tecibbar]

Theory of communism was popular in the 19th century, when the working condition was bad, and the average working was abused/exploit by corporations.

I believe that because of the threat of communism, most developed countries improve social welfare in the 20th century.

 

[BasketCase]

Those are very different societies in which there is an extremely small group of people who rule over the masses. I will definently agree than in that case thigns will get ugly. The concern in regards to the society I described is that it it is possible for people to attempt to take power over others, in which case it is important to see whether or not they would be successful (I predict they wouldn't be because of a combination of anti-authoritarian culture and lack of logical reason).

Milgram already proved that anti-authoritarian culture is the exception and not the rule. In any society without authority, therefore, people will be very successful at asserting authority because they will be readily accepted.

I know you wouldn't accept said authority. The thing you're not realizing here is that most other people do not think like you. You, Greenpeace, are the exception and not the rule.

Thats not something any society can possibly solve, people will always be hungry when they don't have food. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be used as a threat.

Whether starvation is "used as a threat" is irrelevant. The threat of starvation already exists naturally, in every government system--including the absence of any government at all.

* harm-offering positive or negative incentives to persuade someone to perform tasks, to cause physical/emotional/mental damage, or to not provide neccessary vital support to a person who cannot sufficiently support themselves when you can easily provide (like not feeding a baby).

I disagree with the third word of your definition (which means a lot).

Negative incentives are harmful--to a degree. Positive incentives are not. Except if that positive incentive is for somebody to do something illegal, in which case it acquires the label "bribe".


Now, the negative incentive of "work or starve to death" does exist in capitalist society--but as I already described, it exists everywhere so it's irrelevant. The primary hallmark of capitalism is positive incentive: do work in order to get goodies. Now, since this Greenpeace guy doesn't like authority, let's avoid authority altogether--by letting people choose what goodies they want for themselves. We need to portion out the goodies fairly, but we need to let the People choose which goodies they want. How do you suppose we go about that......?

Money.


So, when Greenpeace asks for positive incentives and no other authority over the economic system.....we once again come up with a system functionally identical to capitalism.

 

[greenpeace]

Milgram already proved that anti-authoritarian culture is the exception and not the rule. In any society without authority, therefore, people will be very successful at asserting authority because they will be readily accepted.

I know you wouldn't accept said authority. The thing you're not realizing here is that most other people do not think like you. You, Greenpeace, are the exception and not the rule.

Bush's approval rating. Also, as I said before, in an open society it is possible for the 35% who did not agree to the authority to convince others to disobey unjust authority. How about we set up an experiment were there are three actors and one actor trys to convince the teacher to stop, because that situation much more closly mirrors real-life, for it is very hard for someone to completely turn a direct-democracy into a tyranny without opposition.

Whether starvation is "used as a threat" is irrelevant. The threat of starvation already exists naturally, in every government system--including the absence of any government at all.

Addressed below.

I disagree with the third word of your definition (which means a lot).

Negative incentives are harmful--to a degree. Positive incentives are not. Except if that positive incentive is for somebody to do something illegal, in which case it acquires the label "bribe".

Positive incentives, when allowed to be as prevelent as in Capitalism, are the same as negative incentives because you may easily end up having to work against your will to receive the postive incentive of not starving to death.

Now, the negative incentive of "work or starve to death" does exist in capitalist society--but as I already described, it exists everywhere so it's irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because people will be forced to work on something other than what is neccessary for survival against their will.

The primary hallmark of capitalism is positive incentive: do work in order to get goodies. Now, since this Greenpeace guy doesn't like authority, let's avoid authority altogether--by letting people choose what goodies they want for themselves. We need to portion out the goodies fairly, but we need to let the People choose which goodies they want. How do you suppose we go about that......?

Money.

Its exactly right that I will be allowed to create whatever I want to create and work however I want to work. However, I shouldn't be forced to make goodies for others (unless of course they are unable to provide for themselves).

So, when Greenpeace asks for positive incentives...

No real positive incentives exist except the incentive to do what I naturally want to do.

 

[BasketCase]

Bush's approval rating.

Is a measure of what people say. But take a look at what American people are doing. Do you see any form of revolt against President Bush? No. The closest we've seen is a change in the makeup of Congress. When that failed to alter Bush's policies? Nothing.

The troops are still in Iraq. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq--yet President Bush insists, and our response is what? Nothing. President Bush says the troops stay in Iraq, and we are obeying. There was a modest effort to change Bush's position, but when it failed, the American people caved in to Bush's will.

There are other examples, but they pale in comparison to that one. You pointed out what the American people are saying. I pointed out what they are doing. As a result (according to that old saying about actions and words) my testimony carries precisely one thousand times more weight than yours.

Also, as I said before, in an open society it is possible for the 35% who did not agree to the authority to convince others to disobey unjust authority. How about we set up an experiment were there are three actors and one actor trys to convince the teacher to stop

I already answered this.

That effect (plain old basic groupthink) was already well-known long before Milgram arrived on the scene. None of us wants to be the first to stick his neck out. The basic theme remains unchanged: the test subject wants someone else to take the lead. In your example, Traitorfish, the actor who sits next to the test subject and refuses to continue the experiment steals the crown--he becomes the leader.

Every time you ask the same question, I'm going to give the same answer. Unless I forget or paste in the wrong block of text or something. Even I make mistakes.


And I've got an even better experiment in addition. How about we have one imperialist pro-war wingnut who wants the troops to stay in Iraq, and three bleeding-heart leftist hippies trying to convince him to pull the troops out.

Oops! Wait a second--that's exactly what is already happening in Iraq right now!!!

Gotcha. You talk in hypotheticals. I've got real scenarios that have already happened.

Positive incentives, when allowed to be as prevelent as in Capitalism, are the same as negative incentives because you may easily end up having to work against your will to receive the postive incentive of not starving to death.

I already answered this too.

Whether starvation is "used as a threat" is irrelevant. The threat of starvation already exists naturally, in every government system--including the absence of any government at all.

What you just said here is not a problem with capitalism, it is an unavoidable fact of life. Say it's wrong all you like. The fact that you have not (yet) committed suicide proves you agree with me. And if you say otherwise, you're lying. No, you don't like it, but you find this kind of cruelty preferable to death.

If you reply in any way, that proves you're still alive and that I'm therefore right. The only way you can prove me wrong is to never post again.

It is not irrelevant because people will be forced to work on something other than what is neccessary for survival against their will.

Never. Nobody's forcing you to work for anything other than your survival. You work for money. That money is yours to spend as you please. Nobody's forcing you to spend your money on anything else; save it all for food and housing. And nobody's forcing you to make sunglasses for people, or serve them food, or pump their gas. The choice of job is yours. That's the way it should be.

No real positive incentives exist except the incentive to do what I naturally want to do.

It's entirely natural to want to prevent your fellow humans from throwing you in prison. If you want to go trying to rewrite the dictionary.....well, I can play that game too--and I just played a full house.

 

[BasketCase]

No real positive incentives exist except the incentive to do what I naturally want to do.

Stop the press, I just came up with another good one.

BasketCase naturally does not want to build a house or grow food for Greenpeace. Which means what? That Greenpeace is now homeless and hungry.

That's a negative incentive, right? Negative incentives are not allowed?

Then that means I have to build a house for Greenpeace and grow him food. But I don't naturally want to do that!


See? Your system is broken. The things you call "negative incentives" cannot be avoided.

I know I will never actually succeed in changing your viewpoint--that's not why I'm here. I'm here to test my viewpoints by seeing if there are any others out there that are possible in the real world. So you go right ahead and blab about could-have-been's all you want (just be aware that once in a while I'll call you a knucklehead or say "go to hell" or some such). If you wish to convert me to your viewpoint, Greenpeace, you're going to have to come up with a system that actually works.

 

[greenpeace]

First post:

Spoiler :

Is a measure of what people say. But take a look at what American people are doing. Do you see any form of revolt against President Bush? No. The closest we've seen is a change in the makeup of Congress. When that failed to alter Bush's policies? Nothing.

The troops are still in Iraq. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq--yet President Bush insists, and our response is what? Nothing. President Bush says the troops stay in Iraq, and we are obeying. There was a modest effort to change Bush's position, but when it failed, the American people caved in to Bush's will.

There are other examples, but they pale in comparison to that one. You pointed out what the American people are saying. I pointed out what they are doing. As a result (according to that old saying about actions and words) my testimony carries precisely one thousand times more weight than yours.

Bush's approval rating shows that people will not mindlessly agree with authority, the second part of that paragraph, your right in your response, I made the mistake of going along with your mindset and talking about something completely irrelevant (its talking about taking down an established authority whereas the real arguement was preventing an authority from rising). What I should have said was: As the first part (about approval rating) shows is that people are not going to be completely willing to follow authority, so this society will not immediatly turn into totalitarianship. What you need to proove is that without an established authority (except the one I described), a new authority will very rapidly rise. I'm not about to say this society will never in all eternity become corrupt and turn into something else, I'm simply saying it will be stable. The milgram experiment won't help you, because it has only one authority, whereas in this case there would be two authorities, the directly democratic system I described, and the hypothetical power hungry person trying to take power. You have to proove that the power-hungry person/group will usually prevale.

What you just said here is not a problem with capitalism, it is an unavoidable fact of life. Say it's wrong all you like. The fact that you have not (yet) committed suicide proves you agree with me. And if you say otherwise, you're lying. No, you don't like it, but you find this kind of cruelty preferable to death.

If you reply in any way, that proves you're still alive and that I'm therefore right. The only way you can prove me wrong is to never post again.

This is completely illogical because I'm not saying that Capitalism is so bad its worse than death, I'm saying there is something better.

Never. Nobody's forcing you to work for anything other than your survival. You work for money. That money is yours to spend as you please. Nobody's forcing you to spend your money on anything else; save it all for food and housing. And nobody's forcing you to make sunglasses for people, or serve them food, or pump their gas. The choice of job is yours. That's the way it should be.

Oh good, I'm glad that all McDonald's employees would be completely willing to do their work if it weren't for the threat of starvation.

It's entirely natural to want to prevent your fellow humans from throwing you in prison. If you want to go trying to rewrite the dictionary.....well, I can play that game too--and I just played a full house.

I already told you that offering negative incentment to not do harm is an exception.

Second post:

Spoiler :

Stop the press, I just came up with another good one.

BasketCase naturally does not want to build a house or grow food for Greenpeace. Which means what? That Greenpeace is now homeless and hungry.

That's a negative incentive, right? Negative incentives are not allowed?

Then that means I have to build a house for Greenpeace and grow him food. But I don't naturally want to do that!


See? Your system is broken. The things you call "negative incentives" cannot be avoided.

I know I will never actually succeed in changing your viewpoint--that's not why I'm here. I'm here to test my viewpoints by seeing if there are any others out there that are possible in the real world. So you go right ahead and blab about could-have-been's all you want (just be aware that once in a while I'll call you a knucklehead or say "go to hell" or some such). If you wish to convert me to your viewpoint, Greenpeace, you're going to have to come up with a system that actually works.

How is not providing a house and food for Greenpeace a negative incentment to you? Your just doing want you want to do (or rather not doing what you don't want to do). Unless your saying its a negative incentment to Greenpeace? But your not telling Greenpeace to work for you with the threat that you will make Greenpeace go homeless and starve if Greenpeace doesn't. Your arguement makes no sense.

 

[BasketCase]

What you need to proove is that without an established authority (except the one I described), a new authority will very rapidly rise.

You should have realized before you posted this that said proof already exists.

That proof is nothing more than world history itself. Bodies of authority have been overthrown many times for far longer than recorded history has actually existed. In every single case, a new authority quickly arose to replace the old one. Some were good, some were bad.

There have been many cases where a government was overthrown and the country in which it happened did not acquire a new government right away. In other words, for a period of time, no authority was present. During these periods of anarchy, the results were always chaos and extensive human suffering. And in the end, the final result was the same as above: a new authority arose to take the place of anarchy.

There. Proof provided. Every time a government authority has collapsed in human history, another has risen to replace it.

I'm not about to say this society will never in all eternity become corrupt and turn into something else, I'm simply saying it will be stable. The milgram experiment won't help you, because it has only one authority, whereas in this case there would be two authorities, the directly democratic system I described, and the hypothetical power hungry person trying to take power. You have to proove that the power-hungry person/group will usually prevale.

Will do. In order to do so, I ask you this question:

Greenpeace: how many instances of your ideal government have existed in human history?

I already know the answer: very few. I know that because you're in this thread complaining about the lack of your ideal system. See? Most governments are the kind you hate. Therefore: evil power-hungry groups that Greenpeace hates, usually prevail. I'd say I was sorry to break the bad news to you, but the real truth is I actually enjoyed it immensely.

How is not providing a house and food for Greenpeace a negative incentment to you?

If you need a house and food, and I refuse to provide them, I am doing harm to you, am I not? And one of the basic tenets of your ideal society (your ideal, not mine) was this:

The first exception is that there needs to be an authority to stop and prevent people from harming each other.

In order to avoid violating this tenet, I must provide food and housing for you--but I don't want to. Which means one of your other basic tenets is violated:

No real positive incentives exist except the incentive to do what I naturally want to do.

Now, no government is perfect--there will be conflicts between various laws now and then, no matter what you do--but your system will trip over the above contradiction constantly. It simply cannot work. Out in the wild, it's usually the second Greepeace tenet (do whatever you naturally want to do) that is followed most closely, and the first (do no harm to others) is violated wholesale. If we institute your system, that's what's probably going to happen. But one tenet or the other must go out the window, and the moment it does, your ideal society degenerates into either a violent free-for-all or a totalitarian state.


Edit: Thumbs-down on that spoilers-only style of posting, Greenie. It was pretty confusing, and I had to re-read everything several times to work out which parts were actually you talking.

 

[greenpeace]

There. Proof provided. Every time a government authority has collapsed in human history, another has risen to replace it.

What does that have to do with the society being relativly stable or not?

Greenpeace: how many instances of your ideal government have existed in human history?

Counter-question: How many times has it been attempted, and when they fell, why and how long did it take?

I already know the answer: very few. I know that because you're in this thread complaining about the lack of your ideal system. See? Most governments are the kind you hate. Therefore: evil power-hungry groups that Greenpeace hates, usually prevail. I'd say I was sorry to break the bad news to you, but the real truth is I actually enjoyed it immensely.

First I might disagree, but I don't hate or believe in "zomg teh evils". Second there has been no real huge movement towards this deal (although I admit, I haven't read much material on this society, so I may be wrong).

If you need a house and food, and I refuse to provide them, I am doing harm to you, am I not? And one of the basic tenets of your ideal society (your ideal, not mine) was this:

Unless I'm a baby or physically impaired, or for some reason can not provide such a thing, you are under no obligation to provide me with such a thing and are not harming me for not providing such things.

Now, no government is perfect--there will be conflicts between various laws now and then, no matter what you do--but your system will trip over the above contradiction constantly. It simply cannot work. Out in the wild, it's usually the second Greepeace tenet (do whatever you naturally want to do) that is followed most closely, and the first (do no harm to others) is violated wholesale. If we institute your system, that's what's probably going to happen. But one tenet or the other must go out the window, and the moment it does, your ideal society degenerates into either a violent free-for-all or a totalitarian state.

You still have yet to create any major contradictions (I mean the only way you could say it contradicts is that you have to provide babies and elderly with food if possible, not physically/mentally/emotionally damge others, not offer positive/negative incentment other than of course involuntary emotional response, but I already said those are exceptions)

Remember though, you don't have the right to do whatever, you have the right to do whatever except harm others.

Spoiler :

Edit: Thumbs-down on that spoilers-only style of posting, Greenie. It was pretty confusing, and I had to re-read everything several times to work out which parts were actually you talking.

Sorry

 

[Traitorfish]

Every time a government authority has collapsed in human history, another has risen to replace it.

But in how many of those situations did the "new" authority spontaneously emerge, and in how many was it simply a pre-existing authority moving into the void? Whether this is an external authority, e.g. a foreign nation, a semi-external authority, e.g. the leadership of a revolutionary party, or an internal authority, e.g. a surviving faction of the previous authority, they are still distinct from a new authority emerging spontaneously.