Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1094333 -


What kind of a battle do you get between groups of 30? Even if one group did want to fight, the other side has 100,000 square miles to move on to. Why would they fight "wars" in a situation like this? What benefit to them would war be? They can't steal anything because hunter-gatherers don't store food. So you are risking your hunters getting injured, which means they can't hunt, which means the tribe quickly starves and dies, for absolutely nothing.

We don't live in a world of bands of 30 roaming around. We live in a world of billions of people. When few people are around and there are ample spaces and resources, there is no reason to fight. But, when we feel threatened, or when someone has something we want, it is natural to strike out and fight. This is as much of a part of human nature as compassion is.

You seem to be implying that before "civilized" societies and economies came into being, everyone roamed around in a lawless, yet beatiful and idyllic world where everything was perfect. Maybe so, maybe not. I am a tad bit more pessimistic about human history than you. I surmise that life back then was short, brutish, and nasty.



It's not like modern day capitalism where the president can order 30,000 americans to go and die in a war and know the next day there'll be another 30,000 strangers to replace them. That's when you get wars, when the minority at the top are completely seperate to the people they command.

Huh? You seem to be insinuating that any country that has a capitalist economy (a free market economy in other words) is aggressive and imperialistic. Imperialism is not confined to capitalist democratic societies. What about when the Soviet Union infiltrated and absorbed Eastern Europe(and they tried to dominate every other damn country they could get their hands on). Or when Nazi Germany started to attack it's neighbors because it had territorial ambitions? Every type of government, whether it be the most totalitarian dictatorship or the most free democracy, engages in war.

And, there is always that "minority on the top" in every society, even in "utopias" where everyone is supposedly equal(the Party members in the Soviet Union are an example), or in countries that are ruthlessly controlled and "efficient" (Party member and friends in Nazi Germany for example). The difference in America is that we have the right to choose who controls our government, which is a freedom that many people in the past did not have access to and many people in the present still do not have access to.


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1094775 -

"So you are risking your hunters getting injured, which means they can't hunt, which means the tribe quickly starves and dies, for absolutely nothing."

Hey, that's war for ya. Nobody ever said war was a rational, well thought out way of dealing with problems. Everyone knows war is stupid and irrational, and it happens.

"It's not like modern day capitalism where the president can order 30,000 americans to go and die in a war and know the next day there'll be another 30,000 strangers to replace them."

What about ancient Greece when armies weren't so expendable? There were still wars. People fight for hubris, not only for sensible things. Wars and aggression are the same irrational human emotions, just playing out on a larger scale.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phluck]
    #1094983 -

What about ancient Greece when armies weren't so expendable?

We're still talking about a minority at the top having control of the majority and they wern't hunter-gatherers either.

No-ones arguing the last 5000 years have been violent, the big question is whether this means it's "Human nature" or simply the system we live under.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1095004 -

And, there is always that "minority on the top" in every society, even in "utopias" where everyone is supposedly equal(the Party members in the Soviet Union are an example),

I wouldn't call the soviet union a utopian society. It had a minority at the top who controlled everything. Clearly that's as far from the genuine idea of anarchism or communism as you can possibly get. Indeed the soviets helped destroy the anarchist communes that had formed in Spain in the early 30's.

Saying the last 100 years proves anything about "Human nature" is clearly nonsense. It proves things about the system we're living under sure, but nothing else.

This is as much of a part of human nature as compassion is

But it clearly isn't. For 99.9% of human history we lived in a way where compassion was elevated far above warfare for the simple reason that compassion helped the group survive.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1095681 -

This is as much of a part of human nature as compassion is


But it clearly isn't. For 99.9% of human history we lived in a way where compassion was elevated far above warfare for the simple reason that compassion helped the group survive.

We could argue all day about what we think true human nature consists of and what the world was like thousands of years ago. The fact is neither of us knows, so I guess there is actually no point in surmising that we do.


And, there is always that "minority on the top" in every society, even in "utopias" where everyone is supposedly equal(the Party members in the Soviet Union are an example),


I wouldn't call the soviet union a utopian society. It had a minority at the top who controlled everything.

That's the point. It was supposed to be a utopian society. It was intended to be a utopian society. But, it didn't turn out that way. Utopia is not possible, because people are not perfect.

You seem to be one of the people who believe in the perfect ideal of the "peaceful anarchist community". This type of anarchy in today's world is not possible. There are too many people, and too few resources. If there is no order to enforce rules that are in place to protect people's bodies and properties, there are not so compassionate people who will take advantage of the situation. And, because a lot of people are greedy and status seeking, an unabated and uncontrolled capitalism would ensue, which would quickly destroy the environment and polarize wealth.

If you truly want to enact an anarchist paradise, gather together some friends go to some deserted island and try it. I have a feeling it won't work out though.

RandalFlagg


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1095697 -

It was supposed to be a utopian society. It was intended to be a utopian society.

Well I think every society was originally intended to be "utopian". Capitalism was supposed to create a utopian society too. The fact is the soviet union was never anywhere close to being communism or anarchism, even Lenin said it needed 50-100 years of dictatorship before they could even think of beginning to implement communism.

This type of anarchy in today's world is not possible.

The original argument wasn't really about that, it was about human nature. Which society is "better" is another argument. You could argue that following capitalism has led man to the greatest crisis in the planets history. We are living through the second largest mass extinction period since the dinosaurs and have little, if any, hope for a long term future. If that's "success" then we clearly need to go back to the drawing board. Mankind is 2 million years old, homo sapiens is around 100,000 years old, we have followed the idea of nations being led by a minority at the top for just the last 5000 years or so. 5000 years out of 2 million is a piss in the ocean timewise. We don't have to follow these methods for the next 100,000 years. Especially if they ensure our extinction.

I suppose we have to ask ourselves whether the risk of trying anarchy outweighs the certain destruction we've got coming carrying on as we are. My guess is it probably is. Not in the short-term maybe, but the fact is we arn't gonna last another million years sticking with the methods we've been following. We'll be lucky to last the next 200 years at this rate.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1095736 -

It was supposed to be a utopian society. It was intended to be a utopian society.


Well I think every society was originally intended to be "utopian". Capitalism was supposed to create a utopian society too. The fact is the soviet union was never anywhere close to being communism or anarchism, even Lenin said it needed 50-100 years of dictatorship before they could even think of beginning to implement communism.

I disagree that capitalism was intended to make a utopian society. Capitalism let's people do what they want, instead of telling them what to do. This freedom is nice, but I will admit that when people have freedom, they indulge in their pursuits more gluttonously. That is a flaw of capitalism.

We must strive to do what will make things the most tolerable, but we must realize that perfection is unattainable.


This type of anarchy in today's world is not possible.


The original argument wasn't really about that, it was about human nature. Which society is "better" is another argument. You could argue that following capitalism has led man to the greatest crisis in the planets history. We are living through the second largest mass extinction period since the dinosaurs and have little, if any, hope for a long term future. If that's "success" then we clearly need to go back to the drawing board.

Mankind is 2 million years old, homo sapiens is around 100,000 years old, we have followed the idea of nations being led by a minority at the top for just the last 5000 years or so. 5000 years out of 2 million is a piss in the ocean timewise. We don't have to follow these methods for the next 100,000 years. Especially if they ensure our extinction.

Well, I realize I said earlier that nobody completely understands human nature, so how can I, or anybody else, claim to understand it. But, here's a thing I'll throw out at you. All over the world, it seems to be natural for people to group together(we seem to be a "herd animal"). Even with isolated civilizations that did not have contact with other civilizations, and therefore were not influenced, there came about an order and a structure. Even in the animal world this happens. Wolf packs have a male and a female leader, for example. This may point to the possibility that it is animal nature to group together and to establish an order or a hierarchy.


I suppose we have to ask ourselves whether the risk of trying anarchy outweighs the certain destruction we've got coming carrying on as we are. My guess is it probably is. Not in the short-term maybe, but the fact is we arn't gonna last another million years sticking with the methods we've been following. We'll be lucky to last the next 200 years at this rate.

What do you mean by certain destruction? Do you mean environmental destruction? If so, the only way to eliminate that is to kill off 99% of the human begins on this planet, and force the survivors to live in huts, eat twigs, and never reproduce enough to increase the population. The people of Earth will never willingly submit to this. Every person on this planet causes an environmental impact. Right now you are using a computer that was manufactured with parts that were made in a factory that caused some pollution somewhere. You are using power to run the computer (which is probably coming from a fossil fuel burning power plant). You eat, you shit, and you consume(which all cause pollution and environmental problems). That's the way it is. That is why I support paying people to get sterilized, free abortions, and "suicide shops" where people can willingly come in and get "put down".

Or do you mean destruction that is caused by the clashing of civilizations or nations? That will always happen. People and civilizations clash. To me, this just seems an inevitable part of existence.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1096020 -

Wolf packs have a male and a female leader, for example

Not sure whether wolf packs are a good relation to human beings but obviously the big difference is the leader is a part of the group. If the group dies, he dies with it. That isn't the situation in human society at the moment. In hunter gatherer groups it's unlikely there was a "leader" - decisions were made within the group. No matter how good your "leader" is in a small band if everyone isn't happy you may as well forget about surviving.

If so, the only way to eliminate that is to kill off 99% of the human begins on this planet, and force the survivors to live in huts, eat twigs, and never reproduce enough to increase the population

I don't think so. I think an enormous effect could be made to save the environment by simply decreasing corporate profit. Shell Oil polluting and destroying vast swathes of Nigeria for example could have been prevented if they'd budgeted for the environment. Could we make computers without destroying the environment? The computer corporations might have to take a cut in profit but it could certainly be done.

I guess it boils down to whether you buy the idea that we need leaders to save us all. That leaders are part of the solution rather than the problem. That handing power over to tiny groups of "leaders" serves the survival of the human race. I'm not so sure.

Taking an obvious example, every "expert" I've ever seen in the mainstream media or TV has assured us for the last 70 years that if we "lost" the "war on drugs" then the violent collapse of society would be immininent. That if pot was legalised the world would rapidly descend into eternal night. Well, we lost the war on drugs and society didn't collapse. Portugal decriminalised pot and everything still seems fine.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1096315 -


Wolf packs have a male and a female leader, for example


Not sure whether wolf packs are a good relation to human beings but obviously the big difference is the leader is a part of the group. If the group dies, he dies with it. That isn't the situation in human society at the moment. In hunter gatherer groups it's unlikely there was a "leader" - decisions were made within the group. No matter how good your "leader" is in a small band if everyone isn't happy you may as well forget about surviving.

I'm sorry, but there is no way that you can verify that 100% of human beings that lived thousands or even millions of years ago, fit into this theory of egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups. It is conjecture, and there is no way that you can know for a fact that things were like this. And, even if things were like this it doesn't matter anyway, because we no longer live in a world that is sparsely populated, so it is not applicable to modern day life.

If so, the only way to eliminate that is to kill off 99% of the human begins on this planet, and force the survivors to live in huts, eat twigs, and never reproduce enough to increase the population


I don't think so. I think an enormous effect could be made to save the environment by simply decreasing corporate profit. Shell Oil polluting and destroying vast swathes of Nigeria for example could have been prevented if they'd budgeted for the environment. Could we make computers without destroying the environment? The computer corporations might have to take a cut in profit but it could certainly be done.

As the custodians of the Earth, we have an obligation to make our impact as small as is possible on our surrounding environment. But, don't forget that we will have an impact. We will encroach upon animal habitats. We will pollute. We will affect the world, because there are so many people and because we require a lot of resources to stay alive and to remain comfortable.

By demonstrating the greed of these companies you just proved one of my points. The people who are profiting from Shell (executives, shareholders, etc..) want to make money. How do they make large sums of money? By operating in countries with lax labor and environmental laws. Why do they do this? For profit. Why would people want profit, and be willing to cause harm to land and other people to get it? Because people often behave in a greedy fashion. How do you keep order in a world full of greedy people who are willing to do nasty things in order to improve their own lot, at the expense of others? You enact laws that limit the harmful things that people can do. What is the fairest way to enact laws that will dictate what can go on in your land? Have a stable and controlled democracy, where people are allowed to vote for candidates they agree with, and if no there are candidates that represent their ideas, they can run for office themselves. How do you make sure that the laws are enforced? You give a select few the power to enforce the law.


I guess it boils down to whether you buy the idea that we need leaders to save us all. That leaders are part of the solution rather than the problem. That handing power over to tiny groups of "leaders" serves the survival of the human race. I'm not so sure.

It is necessary for power to be confined to a few hands, if it wasn't there would be chaos. Thank Goodness I live in a country where I can pick the people who are attached to those hands.


RandalFlagg


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1097462 -

So you are of the mindset that Murderers, robbers, rapists, and all other criminals are this way because of the system they live under. If we all just shared the resources none of this would happen. Are women assets as well under your system. Do we just share them. I get to fuck the pretty blonde today, you get her tommorow, someone else the next day. Or are people going to not envy their neighbors wife(which could be viewed as a possesion) because no one else gets to diddle her.

No possesions at all right. Can't own land. Can't own anything, it is all communal. I get to fuck you if I want as well, you don't own yourself anymore. you don't own anything.

You actually think this is realistic with the population that exists in the world now. Even going back 6,000 years.

You actually think some people just don't LIKE fucking with other people. The TED BUNDY's of the world are products of the Dominator culture RIGHT!!! They didn't like doing what they do, they just have been born into a system that elevates the INDIVIDUAL above the Society, and they are perversions of that.

Do you take ANY RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions, or do you blame those on the MINORITY up top that dominates and controls the majority at the bottom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1097542 -

It is necessary for power to be confined to a few hands, if it wasn't there would be chaos.

They told us that if pot were legalised there would be chaos too.

So what do we do? Follow the methods we currently have which appear certain to ensure our extinction? Do you think human beings will last another million years with the current system?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: ]
    #1097566 -

Are women assets as well under your system

Actually all the evidence shows that women were far more powerful and influential in these early systems than men. It appears that men worshipped women in those groups.

The decline of women in society is a very recent phenomena. The myth of cavemen dragging women around appears to complete nonsense.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1098010 -



It is necessary for power to be confined to a few hands, if it wasn't there would be chaos.


They told us that if pot were legalised there would be chaos too.


Whether a certain substance should be legal or not, is not applicable to the question of whether there needs to be authority. They are two completely different topics with their own problems.


So what do we do? Follow the methods we currently have which appear certain to ensure our extinction? Do you think human beings will last another million years with the current system?


No matter what system human beings live under, bad stuff will happen. I personally don't think the human race will last another million years. We pollute too much. We are too violent. Technology has exponentially increased our capability to cause destruction. Something is probably going to happen that will fuck everything up permanently. I just hope I am not alive when it happens. Even though I don't have much hope for mankind, it would still pain me to see it's demise.


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: ]
    #1098073 -

Teonan, it is easier to blame others than to get your hands dirty and fix things yourself. The natural state of man before capitalism was one of poverty, of a subsistence existence, yet the ignorant look around them at wealth that so many have worked so hard to create and blame the poverty of others on such wealth. You cannot expect such minds to comprehend the ideas of leverage and personal initiative, these are as foreign to them as flight is to a worm.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1098092 -

That's a pretty good conversation you have going on.

Both sides seem to be cordial and the responses seem well thought out.

I particularly liked this paragraph of your's:

"I'm sorry, but there is no way that you can verify that 100% of human beings that lived thousands or even millions of years ago, fit into this theory of egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups. It is conjecture, and there is no way that you can know for a fact that things were like this. And, even if things were like this it doesn't matter anyway, because we no longer live in a world that is sparsely populated, so it is not applicable to modern day life."

Aside from the fact that it is a nice conversation I always get caught up in the "why argue this with a person who cannot change their mind" syndrome.

I don't talk just to talk and neither do I spend time discussing issues with people that cannot reason.  Yes, of course you can always say that you post because you wish to educate the readers.  If that's so more power to you.  I, on the other hand, simply do not have the time nor the energy to devote to such tasks.

I'm glad you do.

Most of the time when I am having an argument, or dialectic if it ever gets that far, I will at some point deduce that the opponent is incapable of reasoning or relying on some false premise that they are unwilling to let go of.  At that point the conversation between me and them ends.

Seems like your futility muscles are well exercised, imo.

Have fun! :smile: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: ]
    #1098151 -

I feel all warm and mushy inside now.. :smile:

Five stars to Mr_Mushrooms  Hip Hip hooray! 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1098598 -

:blush:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1100397 -

Whether a certain substance should be legal or not, is not applicable to the question of whether there needs to be authority.

Authority in the sense of allowing us to use drugs?

I personally don't think the human race will last another million years. We pollute too much. We are too violent.

Nah, mankinds only limit is his own creativity. If we accept that Bush jnr is the apogee of human development then we truly are doomed. Don't think that because the free-marketeers are destroying the world right now they will be doing so in 5000 years.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1100540 -


Whether a certain substance should be legal or not, is not applicable to the question of whether there needs to be authority.



Authority in the sense of allowing us to use drugs?


No, that is not what I meant. You were questioning the whole concept of a few deciding certain things and enforcing certain things on the many. You illustrated how drug "experts" have misinformed the public, so I assume you were trying to demonstrate that the "few", even if they are supposedly qualified, don't always make the best decisions. And, by my statement, I meant that that whole analogy was not a good one, because(repeat of my former post) whether a certain substance should be legal or not, is not applicable to the question of whether there needs to be authority(in a society). They are two completely different topics with completely different considerations.


I personally don't think the human race will last another million years. We pollute too much. We are too violent.



Nah, mankinds only limit is his own creativity.


Mankind's only limit is it's creativity? You just seem to be terribly optimistic of this race of ours. Do you seriously think that cruelty, aggression, depravity, and selfishness are going to magically disappear?


If we accept that Bush jnr is the apogee of human development then we truly are doomed.


I don't believe the word "apogee" should be used in the same sentence as "human". It is an undeserved compliment to the human race.


Don't think that because the free-marketeers are destroying the world right now they will be doing so in 5000 years.


Free-marketers are not destroying the world. People are. For example, when the Soviet Union(a communist nation) existed, they were responsible for horrible pollution and exploitation of their resources.

My point is that no matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable noble intentions, because we are too fickle and self-absorbed.


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Liberalism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1102558 -

whether a certain substance should be legal or not, is not applicable to the question of whether there needs to be authority(in a society).

Of course it is. Taking drugs is human behaviour. If we can give people the right to choose whether or not they can take drugs we can give them the right to choose how they live their lives in other ways.

Free-marketers are not destroying the world. People are.

On the contrary, I've just read a fascinating book about the millions of people all over the world rejecting corporate globalisation and creating their own lives and communities. There is hope, just not from the corporate marketeers. Our only limit is our own imagination. Things can be different.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Liberation Day EchoVortex 539 1 04/11/03 08:09 AM
by Phred
* Ann cuntler attacks on liberals... fiction ?
( 1 2 3 all )		 MushMushi 4,569 56 03/17/17 06:09 PM
by Luddite
* Is Liberal vs. Conservative even appropriate anymore?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 kake 6,614 92 07/09/10 06:25 PM
by communeart
* Look out Chavez,Peru's Garcia may buck leftist wave Luddite 765 2 06/12/06 03:08 PM
by Luddite
* Liberal bias result of GOP anti-intellectualism
( 1 2 all )		 Silversoul 3,510 31 05/29/05 02:25 PM
by zappaisgod
* Leftist think tank
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 nugsarenice 7,118 76 06/01/02 03:20 PM
by Great_Cthulhu
* Canadian Liberals are losing it.
( 1 2 all )		 lonestar2004 3,192 34 01/03/06 05:21 PM
by afoaf
* The young are becoming less liberal
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 Phred 12,803 195 11/17/03 12:16 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,593 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.