|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Did I mention trillions of dollars for anything???
However, mutual defense is one of the primary reasons for having a government as well as things like schools, hospitals, fire departments, research and a space program.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:12:37 [Permalink]
|
Did I say that you did? 
I was using that as an example of "illegitimate" government. That is what I think Chomsky makes an attempt to point out.
Most "defense" in my view, not necessarily Chomsky's, is an excuse to rape someone else.
quote:
Did I mention trillions of dollars for anything???
However, mutual defense is one of the primary reasons for having a government as well as things like schools, hospitals, fire departments, research and a space program.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:15:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you name a government-free civilization? I can't.
Define governement. Did ancient tribes have "government" when there was a leader, but no other structure?
I can imagine that there might have been a lot of early tribes where the men hunted, the women gathered, but beyond that, there were no rules or leaders. You did something the others didn't like, you were thrown out or killed, spur of the moment, no rules just right, etc.
Could this be said to be anarchy?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/25/2002 14:16:09 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Anarchy is chaos. Anarchism is something else.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:37:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can imagine that there might have been a lot of early tribes where the men hunted, the women gathered, but beyond that, there were no rules or leaders. You did something the others didn't like, you were thrown out or killed, spur of the moment, no rules just right, etc.
Is there an anthropologist in the house??!!
While I am no expert in this area I would expect that one male(usually) would be dominant. That alone is government in a sense.
I can't imagine a group of people not having a leader of some kind. From my experience it defies basic human nature. Some people are submissive and others lead.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Don't know how relevant this is, have a read.
From http://www.commondreams.org/views/112800-103.htm
When Returns Are This Close, Look To Role Of Primate Politics
by Deborah S. Rogers
RAPID CITY, S.D. -- The too-close-to-call election between Bush and Gore may have been programmed into our genes over millions of years of evolution.
Sound like deterministic nonsense? Let's consider. Animal behaviorists know that every species is predisposed to certain kinds of social interaction. Chickens have their pecking order. Wolves pair up but run in packs. Elephant matriarchs lead the herd while adult males wander off to attend to their own concerns. Honeybees sacrifice their lives to the well-being of the hive and the reproductive efforts of one queen.
Where do human politics fit into this scheme?
Our evolutionary history is one of social primates that underwent a profound transition toward learning, culture, awareness and choice. Evolutionary behaviorists tend to focus on our primate heritage, observing chimpanzees and baboons to look for the origins of human social behavior. For example, Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten ("Machiavellian Intelligence") conclude that the need to outmaneuver one another in the social hierarchy constituted the main selective force driving the evolution of human intelligence. But somehow, the superior intellect of an Al Gore doesn't necessarily lead to social or political dominance, as we have seen.
So what does? The assertion of dominance among beasts of lesser brain is a fairly straightforward physical contest. The clash of bighorn sheep can be heard for many miles on a crisp fall day. Among the more intelligent apes, however, dominance is not that simple. Although physical size and strength play a role, an air of assertiveness and apparent willingness to take on an adversary count for much in the primate struggle for dominance.
Even more decisive, perhaps, is the ability to put together strategic alliances: two or three individuals who share a common interest in toppling someone else's applecart join forces to see one of their own become top ape.
Starting to sound like politics, isn't it? But wait; there's more.
Anthropologist Margaret Power ("The Egalitarians") reviewed reams of data on wild chimpanzee social behavior, from studies conducted by noted researchers including Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, and others. Power observed that what we loosely term "dominance" is really two distinct phenomena: dominance and charismatic leadership.
Dominance, she said, accrues to the chimpanzee bully who uses intimidation, harassment, and outright force to gain the upper hand. Charismatic leadership is exerted by chimps, male or female, who are able to project calmness and reassurance, using force only as needed to settle disputes. The personality traits of dominant chimps are diametrically opposed to those of charismatic leaders: insecurity, hostility and defensiveness vs. calmness, confidence and concern for others. Groups of chimpanzees foster either charismatic leadership or a dominance hierarchy depending on the level of stress they are experiencing.
It's embarrassing to recognize ourselves so clearly in the personalities of chimpanzees. Luckily, the evolution of humanness added several significant refinements onto the proto-politics of our primate ancestors.
First, it gave us the means and the mandate to move away from physical disputes into the realm of symbolic discussion and debate resolution. George W. Bush and Gore don't attempt to pound each other into the dust literally, only figuratively. Second, it gave us the means and mandate to maintain a social structure that fosters charismatic leadership, not a dominance hierarchy. Chimpanzees don't have a choice. We do.
So what does all this have to do with smirks, sighs, earth-tone suits and close votes? Very little ... and that's the problem. Neither Gore nor Bush clearly fits the mold of charismatic leader.
Despite obvious accoutrements of intimidating intellect, worthy accomplishments and creditable advisers, neither candidate projects the personal air of confidence, security, and dispute-resolving capabilities that our primate predispositions require us to expect. With unerring instinct, voters will zero in on the absence of these traits no matter how much they like a candidate's positions. By the same token, voters tend to like a naturally charismatic leader even when they have qualms about his capacities; recall President Ronald Reagan.
While I am sympathetic to characterizations of this election's waffling voters as less than well-informed and clear-thinking, it is safe to say that this type of voter is present at every election. The difference this time is that no candidate grabbed our collective attention at the gut level by appealing to our primate political sensibilities.
With any luck at all, however, the man elected will grow into the role rapidly once he finds himself awash in privilege and power.
Deborah S. Rogers is a biologist and writer who comments on American society from an evolutionary perspective.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
Edited by - gezzam on 02/25/2002 14:58:39 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2002 : 02:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of socialism, is anyone going to go see the new 'Time Machine' movie. Just from the TV ads the speical affects look good.
I really want to see this one and find out if they use it as a political agenda as the earlier one did or the book.
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 13:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can't imagine a group of people not having a leader of some kind. From my experience it defies basic human nature. Some people are submissive and others lead.
So just out of interest, are you innately a leader or one of those submissive types?
I would have thought that a sceptic's forum would have been full of people who would question many of the properties associated with the traditional notion of political leadership.
There is a strong tradition of non-hierarchical organisation in anarchist social movements of the last century, particularly during the Spanish Revolution of 1936-39. How succesful these were would require a better political historian than I am to evaluate.
One point to ponder, though: we exist in a world where competition, not co-operation is seen as the norm. Perhaps if it were otherwise we might be able to conceive of social organisation with out leaders.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 13:44:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So just out of interest, are you innately a leader or one of those submissive types?
I am continually dragged into the leadership role even though it always bothers me. The funny thing is that I have read that good leaders hate to lead 
quote:
I would have thought that a sceptic's forum would have been full of people who would question many of the properties associated with the traditional notion of political leadership.
Sure, we can question anything but that still doesn't make anarchism practical. I'm not saying that it absolutely isn't practical but it makes no sense to me in a real world situation. That doesn't mean it's not a wonderful ideal to kick around.
quote:
One point to ponder, though: we exist in a world where competition, not co-operation is seen as the norm. Perhaps if it were otherwise we might be able to conceive of social organisation with out leaders.
It may be that the competition model is there because that is what fits human nature best. That could explain why there are no societies without leaders. This may not be the case but it is one possible explanation.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 14:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Competition does not exist without cooperation. Cooperation is the norm.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 14:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sure, we can question anything but that still doesn't make anarchism practical. I'm not saying that it absolutely isn't practical but it makes no sense to me in a real world situation. That doesn't mean it's not a wonderful ideal to kick around.
It made a fair bit of sense to the CNT, an avowedly anarcho-syndicalist Spanish tradesunion that had a membership of several million before it was outlawed by Franco in 1939 in the aftermath of the Spanish Revolution. Of course, I accept that doesn't prove that the idea should have any relevance to your life, but it has had plenty to millions of other people.
quote:
It may be that the competition model is there because that is what fits human nature best. That could explain why there are no societies without leaders. This may not be the case but it is one possible explanation.
Certainly there is some truth in that, but equally it's not difficult to show that hierarchies are inevitably promulgated to benefit those that run them from the top down. It's no suprise to find that those in power inevitably tell us how indispensable they are to the ordered running of society, is it?
quote:
I am continually dragged into the leadership role even though it always bothers me. The funny thing is that I have read that good leaders hate to lead
No, good leaders know that their *appearance* of not wanting to lead guarentees them increased support. It's an old ploy, so old that even Julius Caesar used it on recalcitrant troops by offering to stand down as their commander.
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 14:15:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Competition does not exist without cooperation. Cooperation is the norm.
Could it be that people cooperate in order to compete more effectively?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Blair Nekkid
New Member
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2002 : 15:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Politics = Poli + tics
Poli ~= Poly = Many
tics = Bloodsucking Parasites
therefore Politics = Many Bloodsucking Parasites
QED.
Cheers,
Blair
"Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes!" |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2002 : 04:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Could it be that people cooperate in order to compete more effectively?
Again, that is an aspect of most human societies, yes. But if you allow the notion of co-operation (even if self-interested), then clearly there will be political forms of organisation that allow for this to be maximised. I would argue that the evidence quite clearly shows that hierarchical governmental forms do not do this.
Although it's very easy to reduce arguments about this to "we live in the best possible of all worlds", that's hardly a sceptical position, is it?
"Specialisation is for insects." Robert A. Heinlen |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2002 : 09:13:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Although it's very easy to reduce arguments about this to "we live in the best possible of all worlds", that's hardly a sceptical position, is it?
Who's saying it's the "best of all possible worlds"? I'm just saying it may be that things are the way they are because people are the way they are. I'm not saying that's absolutely true, but it is a definite possibility. I also think you need to make a stronger case than picking an anecdote out of a history book to make a strong case.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
