Cultural/racial/religious differences, "that village over there has better corn than us, let's kill 'em", one place having it worse than the neighbour, just from human nature.Without a large or powerful enough government, how do you presume war to start?
I suppose so.
Come to think of it, I don't think the peasants of old were any more willing to fight each other than common citizens are today. It's always the people in power who want to fight each other for power. The only reason the average person supports their government going to war is because they are irrationally scared for their own safety. Without a large or powerful enough government, how do you presume war to start?
id start a war.... and im an average person..... im just too lazy..... but im planning world domination still...
You have a bogus sense of human nature. I know my town would never get into a physical fight with another town, let alone a war. We've had zucchini competitions before, but never corn wars.Cultural/racial/religious differences, "that village over there has better corn than us, let's kill 'em", one place having it worse than the neighbour, just from human nature.
Not in this day and age. I might buy the argument that we needed government in the histories, but I think we've gotten to a point where we don't need them. We are more interconnected than ever before possible. Take this very discussion. I don't see any reason to go to war with you, whoever you are or wherever you live. You seem reasonable enough for there never to be a reason for me to attack you.People are never going to co-exist peacefully. We NEED governments. If we didn't have them, we would just be a bunch of tribes.
Please elaborate on this. Why the hell are they going to go kick other's asses, or otherwise intentionally start a fight?We would co-exist peacefully inside the tribes, until one tribes starts to feel supreme and they go kick the asses of the neighbouring tribes then make them their slaves.
Then we ought not to try, right? Even if you don't think so, there are people who would read that, or think that, and think it's pointless to try to improve in any manner. Through the internet, I know people in other countries, I've talked to them, and I've never met the person who thought I should die on principle. This leads me to believe that those people are few are far in between.There's just too many differences between people and nations to allow people the make peace with eachother.
Yes, and I'm not going to try to stifle this. My preaching is for an initial state of voluntary anarchy. From this, yes, I expect and encourage communities to form. Of course, with the underlying anarchic mentality, these communities will have a critical difference between those of today:Humans are genetically prone to be social and develop communities. Communities will always have some people in power over the other, power will naturally develop every where
Rest assured, that there is such a method.The trick is finding a method by which we can all agree.
Rest assured, that there is such a method.
Chocolate goes straight to your thighs, you know.
I believe you have a bogus sense of human nature if you truly believe that people will somehow exist in harmony forever without any sort of leadership. A leader WILL arise at some point, and the chances are that atleast in a few places particularly violent leaders are born.You have a bogus sense of human nature. I know my town would never get into a physical fight with another town, let alone a war. We've had zucchini competitions before, but never corn wars.
The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.Not in this day and age. I might buy the argument that we needed government in the histories, but I think we've gotten to a point where we don't need them. We are more interconnected than ever before possible. Take this very discussion. I don't see any reason to go to war with you, whoever you are or wherever you live. You seem reasonable enough for there never to be a reason for me to attack you.
I'm going to change my scenario here to something liek this: two tribes live quite near each other. At first they don't even know about each other. Then they discover each other. At first they are alien to each other but after some time they get on good terms. Then Tribe A suddenly hunts on Tribe B's land. B gets pissed off and demands that they get whatever A hunted. A gets pissed off because they hunted it. A and B start to fight.Please elaborate on this. Why the hell are they going to go kick other's asses, or otherwise intentionally start a fight?
I don't mean that we shouldn't try to stop trying to get people the accept difference. However, people are never going to be completely ok with difference. I mean, all of us are prejudiced against something and I would say that everyone hates atleast few types of people.Then we ought not to try, right? Even if you don't think so, there are people who would read that, or think that, and think it's pointless to try to improve in any manner. Through the internet, I know people in other countries, I've talked to them, and I've never met the person who thought I should die on principle. This leads me to believe that those people are few are far in between.
That's why I seek to not remove leadership entirely, but rather put people in the state of mind whereby they wont follow a leader to war.I believe you have a bogus sense of human nature if you truly believe that people will somehow exist in harmony forever without any sort of leadership. A leader WILL arise at some point, and the chances are that atleast in a few places particularly violent leaders are born.
That's what I'm saying is a bogus human nature. You can look at the most violent acts in history to cite your view, and I can cite everything else, including current everyday life. It's the few who will war, so don't let them have armies to lead.The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.
Yeah, and thatI'm going to change my scenario here to something liek this: two tribes live quite near each other. At first they don't even know about each other. Then they discover each other. At first they are alien to each other but after some time they get on good terms. Then Tribe A suddenly hunts on Tribe B's land. B gets pissed off and demands that they get whatever A hunted. A gets pissed off because they hunted it. A and B start to fight.
Violent supremacists are a danger to the rest of us, and as such, should be eliminated. In an anarchy, there is the strong perception that when going against the norm, you go against the whole world. In order for anyone to have a chance at taking over, they must form a nation, and with all the people disagreeing about what type of nation we should have, I don't see that as ever happening once people establish anarchy.Or sometimes it can just happen because a charismatic person becomes a leader and makes his tribesmen believe they are supreme.
But, with the perception that not everybody shares this hatred, any act you make on behalf of it will be stifled by most everyone.I would say that everyone hates atleast few types of people.
Hakeem said:That's why I seek to not remove leadership entirely, but rather put people in the state of mind whereby they wont follow a leader to war.
Tyranid said:The truth is, we don't always even need a reason for war or fights. We can just do it because it's part of our violent nature.
willthealmighty said:pie.
Until then take a piece of the pie.
![]()
People already have a pacifist state of mind. The problem is that they allow their leaders to go to war. The critical difference I hinted on earlier, between current society and the societies that form in the anarchy, is that the anarchic societies will be voluntary. This means that when a leader tries to do something like start a war, people just pull out and the leader is left powerless.More clarity on this statement! You wish people would have a pacifist state of mind so that they would never go to war? Or just never follow a single person to a war?
That takes time and energy, both of which are in short supply.dig underground fallout shelters
More time and energy. If you wanted to do this you should have started decades ago.we can grow underground forests with uv lights.
human energy doesnt seem to be of short supply
it means we are not in short supply of human energy
The part where I died.What is not to love?
The part where I died.
Intriguing. Tell me how it's economical and developed enough to power the entire world in ten years.next power source, plasma.
we could get lots of baked beans and make alot of people fart... then use that gas for energy... or burn poo and use the fire to heat boilers... and use the smoke from the poo in some form of energy...
Nuclear energy.but we DONT HAVE PLASMA, YET... until we do we still need a good source of energy...