So you want to force people to pay "fair" wages but you also want to abolish the state. That is not going to work.Anarchism in Greece and Argentina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CarUYvGGHyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsacA7Jasaw
These facilities no longer belong to incompetent oligarchs. People don't need bosses and poor income. We shoudn't be asking for jobs and fair wages. We should be taking them. Anarchism isn't utopian, It's real and its coming. Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The state knows this, which is why it is upping the surveillance.
RushKing
Anarchism is not utopian!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If anarchism is really against "economies of scale", then we have a lay-down case against anarchism.[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Of course it's hard to imagine large economies of scale taking place under an anarchist system. It's antithetical to what anarchism is.
worlock77
Economies of scales require a massive state, which is quite contrary to the very idea of anarchism.
WHich is precisely why anarchism is a *terrible* idea.Rothbard, Tucker, Stirner, Hoppe, Block, Spooner... these are men than people should read. The anarcho-capitalist school of thought is the only moral position. It is the only one that applies the same standards to all, including and especially the state. It is the only one that recognizes that the basis of the social sciences is human action, that production and exchange is necessary for the fulfillment of man's ends (the object of their action), and that a system of voluntary contracts and market based transactions is the most peaceful and productive form of society precisely for those reasons. It is the only one that recognizes the state for what it is: a legal monopoly over the use of violence in a given territorial area, and an entity that by its very nature must live parasitically off the productive via coercion. famicommander
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[QUOTE="RushKing"]So you want to force people to pay "fair" wages but you also want to abolish the state. That is not going to work. We need to begin by asking these two questions.Anarchism in Greece and Argentina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CarUYvGGHyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsacA7Jasaw
These facilities no longer belong to incompetent oligarchs. People don't need bosses and poor income. We shoudn't be asking for jobs and fair wages. We should be taking them. Anarchism isn't utopian, It's real and its coming. Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The state knows this, which is why it is upping the surveillance.
Laihendi
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
[QUOTE="famicommander"]Rothbard, Tucker, Stirner, Hoppe, Block, Spooner... these are men than people should read. The anarcho-capitalist school of thought is the only moral position. It is the only one that applies the same standards to all, including and especially the state. It is the only one that recognizes that the basis of the social sciences is human action, that production and exchange is necessary for the fulfillment of man's ends (the object of their action), and that a system of voluntary contracts and market based transactions is the most peaceful and productive form of society precisely for those reasons. It is the only one that recognizes the state for what it is: a legal monopoly over the use of violence in a given territorial area, and an entity that by its very nature must live parasitically off the productive via coercion. coolbeans90
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am sure that it is easier for you to laugh like an idiot than to actually refute what he is saying.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"] If anarchism is really against "economies of scale", then we have a lay-down case against anarchism.
radicalcentrist
Economies of scales require a massive state, which is quite contrary to the very idea of anarchism.
WHich is precisely why anarchism is a *terrible* idea.Maybe, but that wasn't really the point of the exchange between us.
So you want to force people to pay "fair" wages but you also want to abolish the state. That is not going to work. We need to begin by asking these two questions.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="RushKing"]
Anarchism in Greece and Argentina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CarUYvGGHyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsacA7Jasaw
These facilities no longer belong to incompetent oligarchs. People don't need bosses and poor income. We shoudn't be asking for jobs and fair wages. We should be taking them. Anarchism isn't utopian, It's real and its coming. Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The state knows this, which is why it is upping the surveillance.
RushKing
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
Why do you believe that mob rule authoritarianism is any better than top-down authoritarianism? Most people are not qualified to make decisions concerning others. Anyways, property rights are a necessary means of enforcing a man's right to live. A man's property is the product of his actions, and a man must have secure ownership of the product of his actions if he is to be free to sustain his life by his own actions. That means the violence used to defend property that is legitimately his is violence used in defense of his life. Even if the state intervenes to protect him, the aggressor is the person violating that man's property while declaring that he has no claim to what is his.
[QUOTE="RushKing"]We need to begin by asking these two questions.[QUOTE="Laihendi"] So you want to force people to pay "fair" wages but you also want to abolish the state. That is not going to work.Laihendi
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
Why do you believe that mob rule authoritarianism is any better than top-down authoritarianism? Most people are not qualified to make decisions concerning others. Anyways, property rights are a necessary means of enforcing a man's right to live. A man's property is the product of his actions, and a man must have secure ownership of the product of his actions if he is to be free to sustain his life by his own actions. That means the violence used to defend property that is legitimately his is violence used in defense of his life. Even if the state intervenes to protect him, the aggressor is the person violating that man's property while declaring that he has no claim to what is his. What do you mean by property rights? Land is not a product of man's actions so I guess no man can own land as property? Why are you okay with wage laborers being deprived of the full products of their labor when capitalists profit from them?We need to begin by asking these two questions.What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
RushKing
That is just plain laughably absurd. You propose that the solution to a lack of truly equal wages is to completely dissolve the only thing establishing any semblance of fair wages, i.e, the state. In what way is that not a utopian fantasy? Do you really think that would result in anything but utter chaos?
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="RushKing"] We need to begin by asking these two questions.Why do you believe that mob rule authoritarianism is any better than top-down authoritarianism? Most people are not qualified to make decisions concerning others. Anyways, property rights are a necessary means of enforcing a man's right to live. A man's property is the product of his actions, and a man must have secure ownership of the product of his actions if he is to be free to sustain his life by his own actions. That means the violence used to defend property that is legitimately his is violence used in defense of his life. Even if the state intervenes to protect him, the aggressor is the person violating that man's property while declaring that he has no claim to what is his. What do you mean by property rights? Land is not a product of man's actions so I guess no man can own land as property? Why are you okay with wage laborers being deprived of the full products of their labor when capitalists profit from them? If a man utilizes unclaimed land in some productive capacity for an extended period of time then it becomes his legitimate property, because he exclusively depends on it for his livelihood. After initial ownership has been established, it can change over time through inheritance, trade, or whatever else. I am okay with wage labour because the labourer works according to a contract that he voluntarily agreed to. If he decides that the contract is no longer agreeable then he is free to quit.What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
ayaqoob1
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="ayaqoob1"] What do you mean by property rights? Land is not a product of man's actions so I guess no man can own land as property? Why are you okay with wage laborers being deprived of the full products of their labor when capitalists profit from them?ayaqoob1If a man utilizes unclaimed land in some productive capacity for an extended period of time then it becomes his legitimate property, because he exclusively depends on it for his livelihood. After initial ownership has been established, it can change over time through inheritance, trade, or whatever else. I am okay with wage labour because the labourer works according to a contract that he voluntarily agreed to. If he decides that the contract is no longer agreeable then he is free to quit. Simply because a person exclusively depends on a piece of property for duration does not give him the right of exclusive ownership till the day he relinquishes it or dies. The concept of initial ownership is subjective and extremely conventional. You are also ignoring the fact that collective property exists in even a capitalist society. I.E the corporation.
Actually, Laihendi's actually argued that property cannot be held by more than one person.
[QUOTE="RushKing"]We need to begin by asking these two questions.
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
SilentFireX
That is just plain laughably absurd. You propose that the solution to a lack of truly equal wages is to completely dissolve the only thing establishing any semblance of fair wages, i.e, the state. In what way is that not a utopian fantasy? Do you really think that would result in anything but utter chaos?
The state is not peacful, and it does not wish to act in my intrest. The few time it does, is when people scare the living f**k out of it. Atempting to solve problems wihout getting down to the root of things is impracticle.
[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]
[QUOTE="RushKing"]We need to begin by asking these two questions.
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
RushKing
That is just plain laughably absurd. You propose that the solution to a lack of truly equal wages is to completely dissolve the only thing establishing any semblance of fair wages, i.e, the state. In what way is that not a utopian fantasy? Do you really think that would result in anything but utter chaos?
The state is not peacful, and it does not wish to act in my intrest. The few time it does, is when people scare the living f**k out of it. Atempting to solve problems wihout getting down to the root of things is impracticle.
So... how do you fathom fair wages and order would exist in anarchy? "Oh, well I guess there's no self-serving state abusing us, so now let's treat everyone fairly and love one another!"[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"]
That is just plain laughably absurd. You propose that the solution to a lack of truly equal wages is to completely dissolve the only thing establishing any semblance of fair wages, i.e, the state. In what way is that not a utopian fantasy? Do you really think that would result in anything but utter chaos?
SilentFireX
The state is not peacful, and it does not wish to act in my intrest. The few time it does, is when people scare the living f**k out of it. Atempting to solve problems wihout getting down to the root of things is impracticle.
So... how do you fathom fair wages and order would exist in anarchy? "Oh, well I guess there's no self-serving state abusing us, so now let's treat everyone fairly and love one another!" Without private ownership, everyone in an enterprise could participate in financial decision making . State enforced minimum wage does not address the root of the problem.Without private ownership, everyone in an enterprise could participate in financial decision making . State enforced minimum wage does not address the root of the problem. RushKing
So it's not enough that people that are educated in finances get us into financial crisises, now even people who have no clue about finance should be able to weigh in on decisions?
And once the state is abolished what keeps me from shooting anyone who wants to lay his hands on something that I consider mine? You know, like what happened way back in the old wild west?
[QUOTE="RushKing"]Without private ownership, everyone in an enterprise could participate in financial decision making . State enforced minimum wage does not address the root of the problem. N30F3N1X
So it's not enough that people that are educated in finances get us into financial crisises, now even people who have no clue about finance should be able to weigh in on decisions?
And once the state is abolished what keeps me from shooting anyone who wants to lay his hands on something that I consider mine? You know, like what happened way back in the old wild west?
If you shot someone just for touching one of your possessions, I cant imagine the people around you being very happy. The local assembly would likely decide to banish you. There would be no rational reason to behave that recklessly in an anarchist society. The wild west was not anarchist.
If you shot someone just for touching one of your possessions, I cant imagine the people around you being very happy. The local assembly would likely decide to banish you. Their would be no rational reason to behave that recklessly in an anarchist society. The wild west was not anarchist.RushKing
Funny, because that's how every mafious organization that ever existed works.
And local assembly? Who the f*ck are they to decide what I'm supposed to do with myself?
[QUOTE="RushKing"]If you shot someone just for touching one of your possessions, I cant imagine the people around you being very happy. The local assembly would likely decide to banish you. Their would be no rational reason to behave that recklessly in an anarchist society. The wild west was not anarchist.
N30F3N1X
Funny, because that's how every mafious organization that ever existed works.
And local assembly? Who the f*ck are they to decide what I'm supposed to do with myself?
Gangs are examples of vertical collectivism, they have nothing to do with anarchism. People are nicer to each other in the absence of social hierarchy. Studies like the stanford prison experiment show the affects hierarchy have on groups of people.That's far from anarchy, in anarchy everybody would be free to do whatever they wanted and in that case why would anyone do any hard work such as keep power plants running or provide any sort of service to help anyone but themselves except a few people? Why would anyone want that kind of life? There's also not a single people throughout history that has followed a anarcistic way, there's always someone who's appointed a leader if people band together and thus there is a "government". Anarchy is simply a fantasy that would completely and utterly fail if tried out.TreflisAnarchism is not utopian ask any anthropologist, in fact we were arguably anarchist for the majority of our history on this planet. If we value our lives, we would try to prevent nuclear disaster with or without a state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSXsaJD8fk
Anarchism is not utopian ask any anthropologist, in fact we were arguably anarchist for the majority of our history on this planet. If we value our lives, we would try to prevent nuclear disaster with or without a state.[QUOTE="Treflis"]That's far from anarchy, in anarchy everybody would be free to do whatever they wanted and in that case why would anyone do any hard work such as keep power plants running or provide any sort of service to help anyone but themselves except a few people? Why would anyone want that kind of life? There's also not a single people throughout history that has followed a anarcistic way, there's always someone who's appointed a leader if people band together and thus there is a "government". Anarchy is simply a fantasy that would completely and utterly fail if tried out.RushKing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSXsaJD8fk
Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol.Anarchism is not utopian ask any anthropologist, in fact we were arguably anarchist for the majority of our history on this planet. If we value our lives, we would try to prevent nuclear disaster with or without a state.[QUOTE="RushKing"]
[QUOTE="Treflis"]That's far from anarchy, in anarchy everybody would be free to do whatever they wanted and in that case why would anyone do any hard work such as keep power plants running or provide any sort of service to help anyone but themselves except a few people? Why would anyone want that kind of life? There's also not a single people throughout history that has followed a anarcistic way, there's always someone who's appointed a leader if people band together and thus there is a "government". Anarchy is simply a fantasy that would completely and utterly fail if tried out.SilentFireX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSXsaJD8fk
Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol. Nomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism.[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol. Nomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism. How far do you suggest we regress as a society? The earliest paleolithic societies of Homo erectus were probably only able to avoid conflict because population density was absurdly small, and they naturally avoided rival populaces, settling in different regions, eventually giving way to the states for which you have so much disdain. In the later Paleolithic era, however, populations were more plentiful, and there is evidence of a shift toward organized warfare as evidenced as early as 15,000 years ago. Unless you have some grand scheme of wiping out 90% of the human race, it is impossible to peacefully live within some idealistic anarchist existence.[QUOTE="RushKing"] Anarchism is not utopian ask any anthropologist, in fact we were arguably anarchist for the majority of our history on this planet. If we value our lives, we would try to prevent nuclear disaster with or without a state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSXsaJD8fk
RushKing
[QUOTE="RushKing"] Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol.SilentFireXNomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism. The earliest paleolithic societies of Homo erectus were probably only able to avoid conflict because population density was absurdly small, and they naturally avoided rival populace How do you know? Your not a anthropologist. Who cares if they did avoid other groups? The point is is that the groups were not violent towards each other. We do not have to treat other people like animals.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there are no capital requirements to science? on that note, later OTMrPralinelol if you're going out for a drink i'll join 3pm on a Tuesday, only college people and divorced people drink at this time of the day, i am heading out for a run around the lake.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there are no capital requirements to science? on that note, later OTsurrealnumber5lol if you're going out for a drink i'll join 3pm on a Tuesday, only college people and divorced people drink at this time of the day, i am heading out for a run around the lake. 9 pm here I am allowed to : > At 3 I was still stuck at the office sadly.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there are no capital requirements to science? on that note, later OTsurrealnumber5lol if you're going out for a drink i'll join 3pm on a Tuesday, only college people and divorced people drink at this time of the day, i am heading out for a run around the lake.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only flat earth society member on these forums. If the world was spherical how could it be sunny during the day at 1pm on the other side of the earth? It just don't make sense :D
Gangs are examples of vertical collectivism, they have nothing to do with anarchism. People are nicer to each other in the absence of social hierarchy. Studies like the stanford prison experiment show the affects hierarchy have on groups of people.RushKing
I didn't say they "have to do" with anarchism. Do you think that they wouldn't exist, more prominent than now, even, if there was no higher power to "regulate" them?
Absence of social hierarchy is what was going on during, huh, paleolithic? Before written history, at least. Why do you think it never lasted any longer?
I didn't say they "have to do" with anarchism. Do you think that they wouldn't exist, more prominent than now, even, if there was no higher power to "regulate" them?
N30F3N1X
I don't know, though gang members are capable of freeing themselves.
Absence of social hierarchy is what was going on during, huh, paleolithic? Before written history, at least. Why do you think it never lasted any longer?
N30F3N1X
I think something happened during the rise of agrarian societies. I think some people were in charge of stuff and their authority didn't get questioned when it went unjustified.
[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol. Nomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[QUOTE="RushKing"] Anarchism is not utopian ask any anthropologist, in fact we were arguably anarchist for the majority of our history on this planet. If we value our lives, we would try to prevent nuclear disaster with or without a state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSXsaJD8fk
RushKing
That is simply, empirically, not true.
ADDENDUM: Look up the economist "Daron Acemoglu." A lot of technological change is directed by firms, it is not something that just happens spontaneously and unpredictably.
Nomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Most people would argue that we're far better off today than we were for the majority of our history. Anarchy wherein people are fair and justice prevails is indeed a Utopian fantasy. The anarchy which existed through much of human history was not one of "peace, love, and equality", lol.
radicalcentrist
That is simply, empirically, not true.
ADDENDUM: Look up the economist "Daron Acemoglu." A lot of technological change is directed by firms, it is not something that just happens spontaneously and unpredictably. Steven Pinker is not an anthropologist. These guys are more credible and their study isn't more than 6 years old. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/270.abstract?sid=99e9916f-04a0-436b-a519-ae5e29237ef4
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="famicommander"]Rothbard, Tucker, Stirner, Hoppe, Block, Spooner... these are men than people should read. The anarcho-capitalist school of thought is the only moral position. It is the only one that applies the same standards to all, including and especially the state. It is the only one that recognizes that the basis of the social sciences is human action, that production and exchange is necessary for the fulfillment of man's ends (the object of their action), and that a system of voluntary contracts and market based transactions is the most peaceful and productive form of society precisely for those reasons. It is the only one that recognizes the state for what it is: a legal monopoly over the use of violence in a given territorial area, and an entity that by its very nature must live parasitically off the productive via coercion. Laihendi
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am sure that it is easier for you to laugh like an idiot than to actually refute what he is saying.It requires more words, and it is pointless to argue with an ideologue, anyway. Most people get past that stage after period of critical thinking anyway (which is lengthier for some than others depending on how emotionally attached they are to ideas that they don't want want to apply appropriate criticism to).I am sure that it is easier for you to laugh like an idiot than to actually refute what he is saying.It requires more words, and it is pointless to argue with an ideologue, anyway. Most people get past that stage after period of critical thinking anyway (which is lengthier for some than others depending on how emotionally attached they are to ideas that they don't want want to apply appropriate criticism to). i am doing fine, and i am still as free market as they come. good luck on your new found lord.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
coolbeans90
edit: as long as you dont base your decisions on fiction, you should be ok regardless of the ideology, the number point me where to go.
It requires more words, and it is pointless to argue with an ideologue, anyway. Most people get past that stage after period of critical thinking anyway (which is lengthier for some than others depending on how emotionally attached they are to ideas that they don't want want to apply appropriate criticism to). i am doing fine, and i am still as free market as they come. good luck on your new found lord.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am sure that it is easier for you to laugh like an idiot than to actually refute what he is saying.surrealnumber5
edit: as long as you dont base your decisions on fiction, you should be ok regardless of the ideology, the number point me where to go.
iirc, you are not an anarchist, so i dont think that applies to you
especially b/c you are numbers
i am doing fine, and i am still as free market as they come. good luck on your new found lord.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]It requires more words, and it is pointless to argue with an ideologue, anyway. Most people get past that stage after period of critical thinking anyway (which is lengthier for some than others depending on how emotionally attached they are to ideas that they don't want want to apply appropriate criticism to).
coolbeans90
edit: as long as you dont base your decisions on fiction, you should be ok regardless of the ideology, the number point me where to go.
iirc, you are not an anarchist, so i dont think that applies to you
especially b/c you are numbers
youre right, i am to anarchism as i am to atheism, i am agnostic to the belief or lack there of, all i really want is liability applied to the highest levels as it is the lowest levels. there will always be structures and it is the outcomes that matter and not the intent. so yea. i have major beef with the feds but i dont mind there being experimentation per bennies view. grats, ya got me chum.
Of course it isnt. Anarchy is terrible.
[QUOTE="radicalcentrist"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[QUOTE="RushKing"] Nomadic peoples were very peaceful and egalitarian. Technology came from science, not capitalism.RushKing
That is simply, empirically, not true.
ADDENDUM: Look up the economist "Daron Acemoglu." A lot of technological change is directed by firms, it is not something that just happens spontaneously and unpredictably. Steven Pinker is not an anthropologist. These guys are more credible and their study isn't more than 6 years old. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/270.abstract?sid=99e9916f-04a0-436b-a519-ae5e29237ef4
Steven Pinker cited several empirical studies from anthropologists. And I would suggest that you actually read the article which you cite; Nothing in there contradicts the basic empirical claim of Pinker and his sources, which is that the incidence of dying at the hands of another man in nomadic societies, based on the sample presented, varies between 15% and 60%. This compares to less than 1% for the US and Europe during the twentieth century, which includes both world wars.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment