|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2003 : 14:44:30 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer and all,
I said in reference to anarchist societies:
quote:
A quick study of these societies show that they do not suffer from abusive strong men grabbing power and that power for the most part is shared equally by all. Leadership is decided by the group as a whole with liberty for dissenters.
I would like to give some points to both backup this claim and show some of its weaknesses
First the Yanomamo of Brazil are a living example of such a society. I studied in them some detail over the summer in my anthropology class and as the anthropologists indicated, they lived in a purely egalitarian society ruled by simple democracy by all members. Even the village elders including the head shaman had no authority over other members of the tribe. Violence and crime within the tribe was virtually nil as it appears to be in all such tribes.
However there are some weaknesses in using this as an example of what a modern industrialized society would be like:
1. These tribes are all "kin" based. In other words the members are all family members of some sort, thus solidarity will be much higher than a group of unrelated people. Or at least it seems at face value.
2. These groups as others have pointed out, are relatively small and require less organization then a larger group wold. However I think that anarchism has this covered with localized communes interacting within larger more national in scale communes with the concept of delegates to communicate between them.
3. These tribes are ethnically homogenous, and anarchy requires strong solidarity. Cultural differences in modern societies could jeopardize solidarity. I will not advocate anarchy if it cannot handle ethnic diversity. However individuality including differences in cultures is also a strong component of anarchy (one of the 3 tiers: liberty, individuality, and solidarity).
4. These tribes do not practice any form of mass production and for the most part do not accumulate much in the way of wealth, something that is very hard to do in an industrialized society. However as far as I can tell anarchy does not oppose wealth accumulation, at least directly, but it does oppose power accumulation. Sadly these 2 are often tied together.
Again I will have to continue researching to see if these issues are addressed and if so, how. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 15:40:19 [Permalink]
|
| While we're talking about what works and doesn't work, I'd like to know why anyone thinks that capitalism "works." It's like war, it doesn't work any better than the alternative, it's just that people think that it does. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 15:47:26 [Permalink]
|
| I think our present system requires an enormous amount of cooperation. It would be a small leap to socialism for most people. Imagine actually knowing that what you do profits everyone instead of just a handful of people. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 20:28:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think our present system requires an enormous amount of cooperation. It would be a small leap to socialism for most people. Imagine actually knowing that what you do profits everyone instead of just a handful of people.
I've got news for you, it already is what most people think is socialism. Rob from the rich and give to the poor, who don't work for it.
One reason I wouldn't like to see Arnold become governor of California is that he wants to have after school programs. A bill he started was already voted on in the last election and won, it was the same thing.
I don't want to pay for someone elses kids. If someone has kids, they are the ones who should provide for them.
If I calculate what I want to earn and save for why should I expect that someone else should benifit from it?
If I feel charitable I'll give to an organization but the government has no business telling me what I have to do with my money.
quote:
While we're talking about what works and doesn't work, I'd like to know why anyone thinks that capitalism "works." It's like war, it doesn't work any better than the alternative, it's just that people think that it does.
I think it works very well.
You or I have a commodity that we want to exchange for something else. We decide what it's worth and do business with each other. If I can make money because I have a skill others want, what's wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 03:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Snake, you don't like government interference, but capitalism doesn't exist without government. Property itself doesn't exist without government. You think people make money in capitalism according to how they work? Then why are the poorest people working three or four jobs?
Bill Gates does not work a billion times harder or even smarter than you do.
Rob from the rich and give to the poor? You have it backwards. A good example is Haiti. Haiti is practically a 51st state. It's poor have been robbed by the wealthy of this country and others. That happens here as well, it's just more evident there because we have laws against the so-called "free market" here due to union organizing etc.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 07:13:53 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo,
quote:
While we're talking about what works and doesn't work, I'd like to know why anyone thinks that capitalism "works." It's like war, it doesn't work any better than the alternative, it's just that people think that it does.
andquote:
I think our present system requires an enormous amount of cooperation. It would be a small leap to socialism for most people. Imagine actually knowing that what you do profits everyone instead of just a handful of people.
These are good points and Snake,
quote:
I think it [capitalism] works very well.
Actually pure capitalism has already failed in this nation and has failed anywhere else it has been tried. We now have a form of socialized capitalism or a strange hybrid between the two. The labor movements and the forming of unions officially put an end to the idea of pure capitalism in the U.S. The now debunked social Darwinism in fact was used to justify pure capitalism by saying the rich are rich and the poor are poor because of some form of natural selection.
Gorgo I will add to this point:quote:
Imagine actually knowing that what you do profits everyone instead of just a handful of people.
That more importantly knowing what you do profits you directly instead of marginally rewarding you and profiting your rich bosses. The fact that this fairly applies to your co-workers also of course benefits them as well. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 07:26:30 [Permalink]
|
There seems to be allot of mischaracterizations and misunderstandings to what anarchy is and I am sure these are not intentional as I myself had them before I started studying the matter. This seems to be something that has become integrated into our culture that anarchy = no order = chaos = bad or anarchy = do whatever you want = everybody is happy = utopian dream.
To better promote a fruitful discussion about its pros and cons then it is obvious we have to discuss what it really is, not a mischaracterization of it. Section A.1 of the FAQ provides a far better explanation of what anarchy is than I could ever do, so please read or at least skim over it so we can address the real issues at stake here and not different issues based on everybody's different definitions of anarchy.
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA1.html |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 07:47:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
Anarchy was able to work as a concept until populations swelled to a level which made it untenable.
I would like to see reasons why anarchy (or libertarian socialism if you prefer) is untenable with large populations.
quote:
Anarchy is also subject to domination of the strongest. Anarchy had a remedial form of leadership called "I'm bigger and stronger than you". This form was only effective in small groups and broke down when the "leader" was too demanding and abusive.
This has nothing to do with anarchy and is the same misconception I had before I started reading about it. These are egalitarian societies without hierarchies and thus without strongmen ruling over them. This appears to be the way all societies existed prior to agriculture and the invention of "wealth".
A quick study of these societies show that they do not suffer from abusive strong men grabbing power and that power for the most part is shared equally by all. Leadership is decided by the group as a whole with liberty for dissenters.
quote:
His (or her) power was tempered by the ability of the followers to kick his ass.
An anthropological study of hunter/gatherer and "primitive" agriculture societies show that no such situation exists today and since these are often used to model as to how we think pre-agriculture societies existed then for most of human history. In fact this very form of government didn't seem to start appearing until agriculture began to appear and wealth began to accumulate in the hands of a few. Since then, we have lived in various caste societies with occasional revolts where we kick the leader's ass.
quote:
Once the groups became large enough in an area, higher forms of governance came into play. They were required to prevent the chaos that is endemic to human greed.
I would like to know how dictatorships, feudalism, and even republics are "higher" than libertarian anarchism? It appears to me, that libertarian anarchism is the "higher" form of government. The chaos based on "human nature" argument fails on many accounts including the accounts of human history. Yes there are always bad apples in a barrel, but are there more effective ways of dealing with them than the current system of ruling elites?
This link addresses the "human nature" argument against anarchism:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca215
quote:
If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
quote:
Communism assumes that the state can provide for you and makes people equal by denying them ownership.
This is what state communism does, but not libertarian communism, which is what anarchy is. There the people own collectively what they make (or individually if you make it by yourself :>) not the state nor an elite class.
quote:
This form is easiest to pervert by greedy individuals. Communism as conceptualized by Marx (who didn't believe that it was obtainable due to human greed) is an Utopian society.
Please why is this an Utopian society?
quote:
Chomski has no problem with legitamate authority. He evidentally recognizes the need for order within a society to prevent us from destroying one another in petty power struggles.
While "authority" is a touchy subject with anarchy, they also recognize the need for order within a society, they just don't think placing authority in the hands of a few elites is the way to achieve it.
quote:
The other problem is that people are not equal. We all have different levels of intelligence and different levels of naivete'.
Equality does not equate that all people have equal abilities, this is well covered in the FAQ I provided.
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca25
quote:
The clever, greedy individuals would still be seperating the marks from their money and still be hoarding wealth made from the backs of others. Without authority, crimes cannot be punished unless a vigalante mob of a sort is formed and the perpetrator hunted down. (no promise that this will actually happen nor that the right person will be targeted.)
I will have to continue to study to see how anarchist propose law and order be maintained without authority. So far the only conclusion I have come to, is that anarchism, communism, and socialism are poorly understood by many, myself included.
As populations grow, the methodology by which decisions are made (anarchists would tend to use everyone needs to vote on everything) becomes more and more cumbersome. Something that a group of 50 individuals can decide in a few minutes can take hours or days. Pretty soon, the population is spending all of it's time voting and produces nothing.
Those egalatarian societies often times had (in the societies I looked at that have such a make up) abusive leaders. The societies (small as they were) had been strong enough to oust the abusive leader and adopted that form of governance to make sure that a powerful leader would never again bend the society to their will. Since their children had been brought up and encouraged in that form of governance, there was no urge to dominate others that could not be controlled. The societies would also meet nightly to make decisions.
Only because the societies were small, was the methodology for making decisions able to work.
Other problems concern psychological makeup. Most people want to be led. It is easier psychologically to let someone else do their thinking. (We call these straight ticket voters here in the States.) For a society to be anarchist and work, all of the members mu |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 08:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
These are good points, but let me summarize them (please correct me if I'm wrong):
You are saying that a caste system is the only viable system for a large modern population because:
1. Decision making would become nearly impossible due to the large number of people involved.
2. The majority of people want to be led, are greedy, and are lazy thinkers unable to think for themselves.
3. Certain people are superior to the majority of all other people and should be trusted within certain constraints to make decisions for the majority.
I would argue as follows against these points:
1. Anarchism promotes decentralization and the use of delegates for larger based decisions. The decentralization would result in small groups making local decisions with delegates acting as messengers for the group to make larger based decisions.
2. I have a very hard time accepting any "its human nature" argument. You agree that the society that the individual is raised in shapes that individual. We happen to live in a society that promotes being subservient, a lazy thinker, and greedy (or at least it seems to me). I think that a society that promoted solidarity, critical thinking, and egalitarian principles would greatly shape the individuals of that society thus alleviating many of these problems you propose. Of course I think the conversion process from one to the other would be extremely hard and tedious and maybe impossible. Also if people truly are innately lazy and greedy then I have a hard time accepting the fact that entrusting power into the hands of a few is a better system then entrusting power into the hands of all.
3. I have a hard time also saying that certain people are inferior and need to be ruled. The long history of egalitarian societies that exist even today show this to not be the case. Yes certain people have certain qualities that make them superior to others in certain activities, but that gives them no authority to rule over the others except in the area of their expertise maybe (such as a doctor vs. a plumber). This would be examples of legitimate authority.
quote:
Those egalatarian societies often times had (in the societies I looked at that have such a make up) abusive leaders.
I would like to see some examples of this. The ones I have examined including the Yanamamo, the Kayapo, several tribes from New Guinea, bushmen of Africa, and a few Native North American tribes, did not have this problem. In fact in these societies there was no leader at all so there was no risk of abusing power.
A final point:
You seem to be implying that for some reason it is "natural" for humans to be superior over others, that there are inferior humans that have to be led by an authoritative hierarchy where only the elite rulers have power and for some reason these elite rulers are truly superior to the others. As I stated earlier if human greed is such an innate problem (and not a product of the society) then it is foolish to place power in the hands of a few.
History seems to indicate that the more hands that have power the less the problems. The U.S. was a major step in this direction. It took away practically all power from the Church, a good deal of power from the State and placed it in the hands of the people. However initially it left allot of power with industry, but even this has changed with the labor movement and the forming of unions. Anarchy just takes that one step farther and places the remaining power in everyone's hands. No Gods, No Masters. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 09:27:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
These are good points, but let me summarize them (please correct me if I'm wrong):
You are saying that a caste system is the only viable system for a large modern population because:
1. Decision making would become nearly impossible due to the large number of people involved.
2. The majority of people want to be led, are greedy, and are lazy thinkers unable to think for themselves.
3. Certain people are superior to the majority of all other people and should be trusted within certain constraints to make decisions for the majority.
I would argue as follows against these points:
1. Anarchism promotes decentralization and the use of delegates for larger based decisions. The decentralization would result in small groups making local decisions with delegates acting as messengers for the group to make larger based decisions.
2. I have a very hard time accepting any "its human nature" argument. You agree that the society that the individual is raised in shapes that individual. We happen to live in a society that promotes being subservient, a lazy thinker, and greedy (or at least it seems to me). I think that a society that promoted solidarity, critical thinking, and egalitarian principles would greatly shape the individuals of that society thus alleviating many of these problems you propose. Of course I think the conversion process from one to the other would be extremely hard and tedious and maybe impossible. Also if people truly are innately lazy and greedy then I have a hard time accepting the fact that entrusting power into the hands of a few is a better system then entrusting power into the hands of all.
3. I have a hard time also saying that certain people are inferior and need to be ruled. The long history of egalitarian societies that exist even today show this to not be the case. Yes certain people have certain qualities that make them superior to others in certain activities, but that gives them no authority to rule over the others except in the area of their expertise maybe (such as a doctor vs. a plumber). This would be examples of legitimate authority.
quote:
Those egalatarian societies often times had (in the societies I looked at that have such a make up) abusive leaders.
I would like to see some examples of this. The ones I have examined including the Yanamamo, the Kayapo, several tribes from New Guinea, bushmen of Africa, and a few Native North American tribes, did not have this problem. In fact in these societies there was no leader at all so there was no risk of abusing power.
A final point:
You seem to be implying that for some reason it is "natural" for humans to be superior over others, that there are inferior humans that have to be led by an authoritative hierarchy where only the elite rulers have power and for some reason these elite rulers are truly superior to the others. As I stated earlier if human greed is such an innate problem (and not a product of the society) then it is foolish to place power in the hands of a few.
History seems to indicate that the more hands that have power the less the problems. The U.S. was a major step in this direction. It took away practically all power from the Church, a good deal of power from the State and placed it in the hands of the people. However initially it left allot of power with industry, but even this has changed with the labor movement and the forming of unions. Anarchy just takes that one step farther and places the remaining power in everyone's hands. No Gods, No Masters.
1) Decision making would become unreasonably complex. By sending delegates as messengers (I think that these would have the power of making decisions, otherwise, they just prolong the decision making process) you change your communal system to one of a representative republic.
2) Most people want to be led. Just look at organized religion. Few religions encourage independant thought. Greed is a motivating factor in our current society. Since it is comfortable and works very well for the elite, they and their attendant sheep are none to keen on changing it. Sheep people aid greedy people.
3) Certain people have been entrusted to places of power and must be watched like trapped rats to ensure viability. We vote them out of office when they abuse the public trust too much. There is no elite that should be trusted. It's just that anarchism removes a control on those elite people.
The South American and Central American tribes I was looking at had a strong, abusive leader in their remote past which inspired their tribe to adopt the form of governance they did. I did not mean to imply that the leader was in the recent past nor current.
I make no such claim that there are superior or inferior people. I am saying that most people want to be led. These people choose to appoint someone else to do their political thinking for them. (Called straight ticket voters) They do not analyze the qualifiactions of the candidates nor pay attention to issues. I think that if the voting public paid more attention to the issues of the campaign and the qualifications of their candidates, the conditions in the US would improve. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 10:23:59 [Permalink]
|
| I don't think anarchism removes restraints on trusted leaders. I think anarchism increases restraints on leaders, and decreases restraints on those that can do less harm. Case in point, George Bush swaggers and brags about his murders, but Karla Faye Tucker fries. Who is more dangerous? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 11:24:55 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
On point 1:
No the delegates are messengers only, carrying only the message that the people authorized them to carry. If they step out of their bounds then the people reserve the right to recall their delegate. They have no decision making power. Yes this prolongs the decision making process, but not drastically. Let's say a new issue comes up or several at a meeting of delegates. The delegate communicates the new issue back to the commune it is from and the commune researches and votes on the matter and sends the results back to the delegate who then votes accordingly.
There are problems with this including an opportunity for abuse if the delegate doesn't communicate the issue properly back to the group (misinformation), but its a better system then we have now which entails:
1. Elect a representative based on his/her promises.
2. Representative decides issues and communicates his decisions back to his electives in any way he sees fit.
3. The people cannot do anything to change what the rep. does until the term is up.
4. Debate on new issues now only happens between reps. and the people get little input until it may be too late.
On point 2, again are these innate qualities of people or are they influenced by the society from which they originate? If they are the former then it is dangerous to place people in any kind of power, if it is the latter then if society changes then the people will change too and anarchy becomes a real possibility.
Point 3:
I don't see the need to entrust such people to power what is the point? Why not keep the power ourselves and manage our own needs and society? Why have a boss or a president?
quote:
It's just that anarchism removes a control on those elite people.
From what I have read, anarchism removes the elite people altogether and eliminates them. Those who attempt to grab power in such a society if it were to exist would quickly be eliminated. I don't see how that removes controls on such people.
quote:
The South American and Central American tribes I was looking at had a strong, abusive leader in their remote past which inspired their tribe to adopt the form of governance they did. I did not mean to imply that the leader was in the recent past nor current.
Were these tribes or states? There are many numerous examples of Native American states that overthrew their rulers, for example Teotihuacan. These were not egalitarian societies however and appeared to have strict caste systems.
I think that the people's attitude towards politics and being "led" are products of our society which encourages it. The fact that there are societies where these attitudes are not dominate speaks in favor of my observation. That being said, social attitudes can be changed thus creating a populace that actively thinks for itself and does not want to be led. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 12:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
On point 1:
No the delegates are messengers only, carrying only the message that the people authorized them to carry. If they step out of their bounds then the people reserve the right to recall their delegate. They have no decision making power. Yes this prolongs the decision making process, but not drastically. Let's say a new issue comes up or several at a meeting of delegates. The delegate communicates the new issue back to the commune it is from and the commune researches and votes on the matter and sends the results back to the delegate who then votes accordingly.
There are problems with this including an opportunity for abuse if the delegate doesn't communicate the issue properly back to the group (misinformation), but its a better system then we have now which entails:
1. Elect a representative based on his/her promises.
2. Representative decides issues and communicates his decisions back to his electives in any way he sees fit.
3. The people cannot do anything to change what the rep. does until the term is up.
4. Debate on new issues now only happens between reps. and the people get little input until it may be too late.
I believe that you do not have a full grasp on the system that the US employs now. As many states have a recall provision, the people have many avenues to explore for recourse. Debate happens at the local level with the representative currently. It's called petitioning the government with grievances and guaranteed under the first amendment. There are many watchdog groups which scan legislation and inform others of the problems with the legislation. This is supposed to incite people to write (petition) their representative and voice their views. It is the representantive's duty to listen to the will of their constituents. (Under threat of recall and removal) The people, by petitioning, do something to change how the representative does their job. Granted, there are some rotten apples and those states that lack a recall provision are subject to these abuses.
I've been involved in political campaigns and the political process since 1972. I started by stuffing envelopes my mother brought home. I've also gone door to door and worked the back room of campaigns. I have seen first hand how representatives work from observing my mother's work as a legislative aide to a General Assemblyman.
The trick is to be vocal. Very vocal. As you have probably noticed, the extremist fundamentalist religious nuts get somewhere by being vocal. They are using the system the way it is supposed to be used. If you don't counter it, the representative doesn't know how the majority feels.
quote:
On point 2, again are these innate qualities of people or are they influenced by the society from which they originate? If they are the former then it is dangerous to place people in any kind of power, if it is the latter then if society changes then the people will change too and anarchy becomes a real possibility.
A little bit of both. Getting society to change from one way of thinking since it has been so thickly ingrained is near impossible. Therefore, Utopian society. Anarchy is not a possibility within our lifetimes or within the lifetimes of our grandchildren's grandchildren.
quote:
Point 3:
I don't see the need to entrust such people to power what is the point? Why not keep the power ourselves and manage our own needs and society? Why have a boss or a president?
quote:
It's just that anarchism removes a control on those elite people.
From what I have read, anarchism removes the elite people altogether and eliminates them. Those who attempt to grab power in such a society if it were to exist would quickly be eliminated. I don't see how that removes controls on such people.
You remove authority which would be necessary to pull down these elite people. Those who attempt to grab power in an anarchist society would be eliminated by whom? No authority to stop someone from getting a flock of sheep people and imposing their will by block voting.
quote:
quote:
The South American and Central American tribes I was looking at had a strong, abusive leader in their remote past which inspired their tribe to adopt the form of governance they did. I did not mean to imply that the leader was in the recent past nor current.
Were these tribes or states? There are many numerous examples of Native American states that overthrew their rulers, for example Teotihuacan. These were not egalitarian societies however and appeared to have strict caste systems.
Tribes.
quote:
I think that the people's attitude towards politics and being "led" are products of our society which encourages it. The fact that there are societies where these attitudes are not dominate speaks in favor of my observation. That being said, social attitudes can be changed thus creating a populace that actively thinks for itself and does not want to be led.
Changing societal attitudes is a gargantuan task. It takes many centuries to change them and then only if the predominant attitude is perceived to be beneficial. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 12:52:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I don't think anarchism removes restraints on trusted leaders. I think anarchism increases restraints on leaders, and decreases restraints on those that can do less harm. Case in point, George Bush swaggers and brags about his murders, but Karla Faye Tucker fries. Who is more dangerous?
Using what authority, Gorgo?
Anarchism has no mechanism to punish wrong-doers. Order is supposed to be kept by people acting in the best interest of society. Sociopaths and criminals do not recognize such strictures as your case illustrates. Tucker was labled a criminal and she fries because she got caught. Bush isn't out of the woods yet. I've written my Congressman concerning his unfounded invasion of a sovereign nation. Both are dangerous to society. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 13:11:42 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
I believe that you do not have a full grasp on the system that the US employs now.
I would like to believe I have a good grasp on the system we have now, although I am sure there are areas where I am weak. I understand some officials can be recalled, but I am not aware of any recall provisions for federal officials nor am I aware of any recall provisions in my state.
I also understand that we can petition the government and form lobby interest groups and get in our reps. ear, but when it all comes down to it, he/she still doesn't have to listen to the majority. He doesn't have to uphold his/her promises, etc. It also doesn't stop him/her from breaking his duty and listening to his constituents, especially since the majority of the political positions do not appear to have a recall provision.
I also understand that being vocal is important, but sadly in our society, giving large campaign donations can be just as important, and both of these components may and often do fail to honor what the majority desires.
quote:
Getting society to change from one way of thinking since it has been so thickly ingrained is near impossible.
However it was quite easy to get them to go from an egalitarian society to a caste system? Teotihuacan provides a great example of how a loose collection of egalitarian societies were unified into a caste state system in less than several hundred years. If it can go one way, surely it can go the other way? If not then I need conclusive evidence as to why it can't.
quote:
You remove authority which would be necessary to pull down these elite people.
No, anarchy removes authority from the hands of the few and places it in the hands of all. They would be opposed by the people. Yes block voting is a problem that could be hard to address, but its a problem our society has now as well.
Can you please tell me which tribes, I would love to read more on them?
quote:
Changing societal attitudes is a gargantuan task. It takes many centuries to change them and then only if the predominant attitude is perceived to be beneficial.
I agree, it could take centuries to accomplish. However the more I think about it, the more possible it seems and just because its hard and it takes a long time to do, does not mean it should be attempted. Striving for small improvements and small steps towards better goals all seem well justified. The fact that people were convinced to leave egalitarian societies to join caste ones, implies that they can be convinced to do just the opposite. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
