The Century of the Self: Can True Democracy Exist?

Whoa.

We are cruel bastards.

back to topic

It existed.

Till money got involved.

Cooperate
1.
to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit.
2.
to work or act with another or other persons willingly and agreeably.

Without voluntarism, there is no cooperation. If you can't choose to not accept a collective authority then it's coercion and not cooperation.



Personally, I believe people are inherently good but, outside factors such as ignorance (racism), competition for resources limited resources (fuel and food scarcity), and views that others should not be allowed to do something they disagree with (gay marriage).

These conflicts drive a person to secure resources and fulfillment for themselves regardless if it harms others.

So basically a little bit of both?

I guess you can see it that way. Another way of saying it would be "We're inherently good until we have a reason not to be".

I would say we are lliving to maximize our own profit and thus selfish the only thing stopping this from turning into a choas is the authority keeping us in check.

Then how do you explain people like me? I have no god or government that directs my actions. I help others for mutual benefit or to otherwise benefit everyone through a small contribution.

The simple act of helping someone push a stalled car off the road is beneficial to the hundreds of people who are delayed because of the stalled car. I personally do not benefit from this action but, I am helping hundreds in a very slight manner while helping a single individual greatly by reducing the risk of injury to themselves.

Excuse me, gentlemen.

Anti-bug post.

Carry on.

First of all, how can you have no government that directs your actions ?

as to actions like you described, While it is not a rule set in stone, people tend to do this when they are grouped together in a society. This is probably in the hope that once you need the help, you will recieve it. It's the concept of solidarity, but this concept only forms when people are already grouped together under an authority. It's the very reason why people submit to authority so that concepts like solidarity take over from the cruel selfish structure that is nature.

I choose to wear my seat belt not because the government tells me to but, because it's rational to wear one. I choose not to steal because it violates my morality, not because the government has imposed penalties for those who steal.

The government only influences my actions with death threats. So rather than risking being killed for resisting the tyrants I choose the path of least resistance. For example, I pay taxes not because I want to but because if I don't, men with guns will come to deprive me of my property, liberty or ultimately my life because I choose to resist.

Basic argument against the state



One does not need a central authority for cooperation to emerge. If you and I lived together, we wouldn't need a central authority to direct us to cooperate. We'd naturally understand that if I go fetch firewood and you went to fetch water we'd be more productive together and more likely to survive. We'd be less likely to suffer from predators or thieves because one of us would be able to stand watch while the other slept.

It's a rational self interest to voluntarily cooperate with others for mutual benefit but, a central authority is not required for cooperation.

Do you seriously need a government to use death threats to tell you to cooperate with another human being for your own benefit?

That worked out so well for Somalia

Oh wait

Now, i don't doubt that you do try to help others,and i applaud you for that. But not everyone is wired that way. Also, there are services like a public school system and a fire department that i would think people are are good ideas,which wouldn't really work without a government.

Basic argument against the state

Well you can put it like that or you can say: If one can not respect other people living in his society he will be seen as a treath and be dealt with (death is extreme in belgium for example its very hard to get killed by authority). Why are laws strict? because people will not follow them when they are not and choas will emerge. In its core every law is meant to benefit citizens, you might think this is not the case but thats why we are allowed to protest and debate them.



The concept if solidarity is one that goes beyond rational instincts, beyond legal laws and beyond morality. Its asking for trust a trust men will only give whne its safegaurded heck even then they find it hard, for example. health care in america, why do citizens find it so hard to pay so that sick people can get proper treathment? Without a state to maintain public goods you cant live together. I might team up with you for a moment but as soon as you are weak and dragging me down you will be left and all your goods will be taken not because I am a bad person but because I am a human living on instincts. I could give mor eexamples: If I wanted someones sexual partner I would probably kill him for it. To be human doesnt mean that we are good in nature it means that we are capable of creating a structure that allows us to overcome nature atleast partialy.

I see your Somalia and raise you North Korea Cambodia China .You list one failed state when there are dozens of genocides if not hundreds that were caused by authorities. Should I also start listing the numerous human rights violations of governments around the world too?



First, we still have volunteer fire departments in this country. Accord to the National Fire Protection Association, 60% of firefighters in this country are volunteers that receive no compensation or pay up to 20% of the compensation a full-time firefighter would receive in the same capacity.

Before the creation of the Department of Education in 1979 the United States had public schools. Also since the creation of the DoE we've spent billions of dollars and test scores among other statistics used to gauge improvement have yet to improve. So yeah, we totally to spend more money on failed institutions.



If my actions are not harming someone, why am I considered a threat? Shouldn't a person be considered a threat when their actions actually threaten the well being of others? For example, murderers, fraud, thieves and the like? If I choose to raise chickens on my property why am I a threat to my government?



People only follow laws because they are enforced with death threats. "Don't do X or we'll kill you" The video I linked explains it at a level that a child could comprehend.



That's a cute and naive way of looking at things. Laws are created by individuals to control the behavior of others. My state made it illegal to be homeless. Yep those homeless people who've already suffered so much are such a threat to the general population. How about the inane laws that ban the use of marijuana? Yeah, those stoners are so well known to just flip out and become violent towards others like PCP users.

There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of backwards, inane, arbitrary, corrupt and unenforced laws in this country.



One does not need a central authority for cooperation to emerge. If you and I lived together, we wouldn't need a central authority to direct us to cooperate.

It's a rational self interest to voluntarily cooperate with others for mutual benefit but, a central authority is not required for cooperation.
[/quote]



Note: For the love of god, learn to spell and use proper punctuation. I shouldn't have to reread something five times to decipher it.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability. Try harder please.

Obamacare is an entirely different beast. The CBO states that the program will cost much, much more than initially expected which means much, much more tax money will need to be stolen from Americans to fund a largely incomprehensible, bureaucratic mess of a program that will require the hiring of tens of thousands of Health care navigators. We resisted the program for so long because it's a costly, poorly designed, poorly implemented program that was more about vote buying than actually improving the health care system. The entire country is now going to be held at gunpoint "buy insurance or face the consequences".



So much for that solidarity you went on about.

Anyways, tens of thousands of charitable organizations, tens of thousands of government programs "designed to help" the poor, elderly, infirm, etc. Your behavior is just self-fulfilling.

Lets not resort to ad hominem please (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), english is not my native language I'am still doing all I can to have an interesting discussion with you. There is no need for agressive behaviour even if people don't agree they can still treat eachother with respect.

Now on topic:


Very true many goverments have failed and many more will fail, to this day there porbably had never a goverment that succeeded and there is no way to know if there ever will be one. But I see no way in wich humans are capable of succeeding outside this structure, I could be cynical and conclude that humans are doomed then or I could choose to look for a system that works better then the current one.



You shouldnt be, the current laws are not perfect and should be constantly criticized, debated and adapted.



While this is a way to put it, I think it fails to explain the complicated working of a human society and its laws.
Laws are more complex, authority has to be legitimated by the people that are under it.
but in essence: yes people do lose part of their freedom, but in exchange they get security. So living in society means recieving all its benefits as long as you pay the price of following the law, any other person would be considered a parasite and not fit to live in society. Today ofcourse there is no life outside society so you are in a way forced to bend to certain laws. But its a price paid for any cooperation to work.
to dumb it down: Lets say you are playing a game. This can only work if everyone plays by the rules, any cheaters will have to be disqualitifed



Never said that all laws today are what laws should be, like I said before "the current laws are not perfect and should be constantly criticized, debated and adapted"
note: Marijuana can harm a persons mental health so an argument for this law could be that it protects people from brain damage



While I don't know the specifics of obamacare, what I do understand is that a lot of people dont like the concept of a strong social care system. Its not "buy insurance or face the consequences" but "In this place we take care of eachother aslong as you live here you will have to do your part".

Another example is gun laws, why do people feel the need to keep dangerous weapons around? why are they not willing to give something in return for something much better?




Thats my whole point, solidarity wouldnt exist in an ungoverned world.



charitable organizations are made by people that live under a goverment why? because the benefits they got from society made them capable of doing this.

People not bound by laws on the other hand will have to fight for survival.
Look at Rwanda for a good example of how men treat eachother when not under authority.

Just say "Sorry, English is not my native language" and you'd get a pass. Secondly, I wasn't aggressive but, I can see how a foreigner could see that.

I apologize.



The bold text is your problem. If you fail to comprehend something doesn't make it less true. I don't understand quantum mechanics but, that doesn't mean it's impossible. People tend to help others "because it's right". There is a video of a crowd saving a person from a burning car. Those individuals risked their lives to save that person and I seriously doubt the crowd had the mentality "if we save that person, we'll be rewarded". This goes back to what I said earlier "People are inherently good until we have a reason not to be"



There is a problem with that mentality. Once a law is passed, it's near impossible to repeal. Everyone and their mother thinks they know what's best for others. Now, the State of New York has banned Soda being sold in cups beyond 16 oz. So now, for people to enjoy a 32oz soda from a gas station they will need to create a large and costly campaign to demand the various politicians in the state to repeal the law and potentially force the governor (who agrees with the ban) to change his mind and permit it.

[quoteWhile this is a way to put it, I think it fails to explain the complicated working of a human society and its laws.
Laws are more complex, authority has to be legitimated by the people that are under it. [/quote]

For a population to de-legitimatize a government it must have the tools available to remove that government. The U.S does not have those tools because the government convinced the population that they didn't need them anymore. Much like your plea for gun control down below.



That's not cooperation, that's obedience. I've said it before but, it bears repeating. Without voluntarism, there is no cooperation. Within society as you describe it you have no choice but, to obey these laws. I can not leave because I will just be subjected to society with a different name. I could try to find one more agreeable but, eventually I will have to subject myself to a government that does not care nor represent me.

Society as you describe it is not based upon mutual cooperation but is isntead based upon coercion..



Self-ownership. Their body, their property, their decision. If the user harms someone else that doesn't then reparations should be made. If they are not harming you, what business is it of yours? Are they your property? Are you their owner?



They don't like it because they have no choice. Without choice, what's the point of free will?



No, if I don't buy insurance (I'm a health, active adult that pays out of pocket for medical care because I can actually negotiate a cheaper rate with doctors through cash than insured people) I will be fined. If I don't pay the fine, I will get a court summons, eventually police will show up to arrest me for not paying my fines. If I continue to resist then the guns will come out and if I keep resisting I will be shot and presumably killed.

To boil it down, "buy insurance or we will kill you". There is no other way to put it because there are penalties for not having health insurance and those penalties are themselves back up by killing.



The government has repeatedly stated it is not obligated to protect it's citizens. Such as with the case of Warren V. District of Columbia



There are a few dozen laws that uphold this ruling around the country. Oh and we hold onto our weapons because we don't want to end up like the U.K. where you have to be an adult to buy cutlery



They exist under a government because to my knowledge there is no unclaimed land on this planet save for a few scattered islands and frozen wastelands that are the North Pole and Antarctica.

I'm arguing that charities exist because people naturally want to help others but, not because some government says "You. Citizen. You will create this charity and you will acquire donations and spread the aid around".

There are at least 2 churches near my home that do charitable work. One doubles as a homeless shelter at night while the other does a weekly food donations where the poor and "food insecure" can come and pick up canned goods to take home. Another does free English lessons for foreigners (most Latin Americans) to help them integrate into society. Another church devotes a significant portion of it's property to growing fruit and vegetables which it uses at dinners for the poor.



I see your genocide committed by Government backed militia's and raise you Elderly nuclear clean up volunteers

I see I wasnt clear I get the concept. I just don't think it would work because, and this is where we dont agree, I thnk humans arent inherently good, they are inherently bad until society teaches them morals and solidarity.



Again , an imperfect realisation of a government doesn't mean that the concept of a govrnment can't work.



Well thats a mistake the U.S government made then, supreme should authority lie with the people that are bound by it.




You share this planet with billions of other humans, by thinking that you have the right to live as you want without even taking them into account you are making yourself an enemy. It's either cooperate or or be a treat, this is something you can't escape because you don't live alone. groups that are willing to submit to authority will allways be more effective and thus swallow individuals that fail to do this. stric voluntary cooperation is not possible because people will always try to cheat others when the see an oppertunity.



If they are citizens of my country I will not let them destroy themselves, even if at the time they dont realise they are harming themselves.



They don't like it cause they lack solidarity



If you didnt lack solidarity, you would just buy the insurance and there would be no need to force you. Sadly people need authority (wich they force upon themselves) to keep them in check. You can see it as an alarm you set to wake you in the moring, you set it so it will force you to do something you know you will have to do and even though you know you have to do it you also know you wouldnt had you not set the alarm.



A failure of the police to preform their jobs, again the system today is still far from perfect and we have to work hard to make it better.


There are a few dozen laws that uphold this ruling around the country. Oh and we hold onto our weapons because we don't want to end up like the U.K. where you have to be an adult to buy cutlery





They exist because society thought the morals and solidarity, not because its a natural human reaction.



Correct me if I'm wrong but don't churches bow to the biggest unlegitimized authority of them all?



So these militia were backed my a government led by a president who they killed before the genocide?
As for this japanese man, he acts this way because japanese culture stimulates this behaviour. Again this is society shaping men to do good. There is no evidence of ungoverned people doing good because there are no ungoverned people in this world.



Basically I think that governed society is a typical human product, it's made by our intellect, it's what makes our species so succesfull. Even if we could go into a stateless world it would probalby only last for a very short time because humans will always create governed societies and these will be succesfull and swallow the whole population. I think the question should be "what is the best way to organize thisgoverned society" because its a system bound to our very nature.

But maybe I should shift the question "How would this ungovernved world work so it doesnt collapse?"

I need to address this directly, the situation to which you described is an isolated incident. It doesn't happen very often, in most situations, it is about a 10% chance that someone actually saves someone from a situation like that. Yes people will go out of their way to save people, but people are not good. They have self interest in mind based on nature/nuture. The fight or flight instinct, that is the essence of your discussion. Most people tend to not get involved in such situations. I've seen hundreds of videos in the news and online of people just walking past corpses on the road or people getting mugged and nobody helps them.

If we want to further discuss the good vs evil nature of humans, the best starting point would be the study done at Yale by Stanley Milgram in the 1960's who created an experiment to see how far people would go in infliction pain on another by being told to.

http://www.ralphmag.org/milgrimZN.html

I think that Milgrams experiment doesnt say much about the nature of humans, In fact its an argument that says authority can make humans "evil".

I think it's the perfect experiment to prove that people are evil, and it also proves that people justify acts of crualty with higher means. If people are truely good in their hearts, then what sane individual would cause another pain under any circumstance. As pointed out in another post, some people will come of the aid of others in a burning car despite not getting any reward for doing so.

An excuse is just an excuse as defined by the geneva convention held after the second world war. There is no excuse for an act of voilence and crualty, and following orders is not an excuse. If it was, we wouldn't have held the neremburg trials because those people were "just following orders".

Perhaps there is a language barrier but, I got the interpretation that you were arguing that without a central authority we'd all be slaughtering each other because "lol we b evil!". This statement seems inconsistent with your previous ones.



How many times do we have to try before we admit that a concept is broken? We've had government or some form of authority throughout human existence and every single one collapses for a handful of the same reasons. The same concept has failed repeatedly for the past 4,000+ years. Should we continue for another 4,000 years before we admit that perhaps it doesn't work?



Every western government has made that mistake. The populace do not have the means to overthrow their governments because the gap in power has increased to that point. If the U.K. citizens said "Hey, this government is corrupt and does not represent us they can do nothing beside stand in the streets and shout because ultimately they have no weapons and the government has them all.

This is why I advocate for MORE guns in the U.S and a closing of the power gap between the U.S government and the people by by decentralizing the military and returning it to the state level.



"Yer either with us, or against us".



Why or how am I a threat? Have I threatened to use violence against you? No. Have I attempted to fraud or coerce you to do something against your will? No. I am expecting you to not coerce me and stop using death threats to direct my life if I'm not hurting you.

If I drink a 32oz soda in New York, who am I a threat to? Do I deserve to be shot and killed for consuming a 32oz soda?

Tell me which of these people should be considered a threat and killed:
1) If a woman gets an abortion in Illinois
2) An Atheist that tries to hold office in Tennessee
3) A person who attempts to grow dandelions in Pueblo, Colorado
4) A person in Alabama that takes more than 5 minutes to vote
5) A person or persons in Los Angeles, California attempt to bathe two babies in the same bath tub.
6) A woman in New York city that is wearing "body hugging clothing."

If not threatening, harassing, defrauding people means I am a threat then that's some Orwellian logic. War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! and all that.



This statement is hypocritical. People "willingly" submit but, they can't "voluntarily cooperate"? I know English is not your first language but, if someone is "willing" it means the action is "voluntary" because both terms mean consenting.

It's very simple;

If you have no choice you are not consenting, you are being coerced. If you're being coerced, you can't be willing because it's not voluntary.



So you appointed yourself the master of another human being? Are they your property as well? We have a word for when people consider other humans property it's called slavery. Last time I checked, it was a banned practice in the civilized world.



Says the man who apparently advocates slavery. You and LustfulAngel should get along swimmingly. You both feel superior to others enough to dictate how they should live their lives. Not to mention the excessive calls for collectivization of society.



Perhaps solidarity has a different meaning in your language but, the definitions I use don't seem to jive with the Orwellian definition you seem to be using.

Solidarity (i.e fellowship) is not the same as the collectivization you advocate.



The "job" of the police was determined to be the investigation and apprehension of criminals, not the prevention of crime. Every state within the United States has determined the same thing. So if we go with your pro-government stance. The government is right, we should just shut up and obey because solidarity


There are a few dozen laws that uphold this ruling around the country. Oh and we hold onto our weapons because we don't want to end up like the U.K. where you have to be an adult to buy cutlery



At least your use of solidarity seems to finally fit. People cared enough to do these things because they cared. Not because a government ordered them to do it.



Membership in a church is voluntary. See the difference? Unlike your society, a person won't be shot because they leave a church. Yes, yes we can split hairs about the radicals in religion and all that. When I abandoned organized religion, nobody fined me, nobody sent me a court summons, I didn't have police knocking at my door threatening me with guns because I didn't show up to church that Sunday.



He also did this because he's naturally a good person. Like I said, people are inherently good until they have reasons not to be.



If there are no ungoverned people, you have no evidence to your own position. You can only point to the ills of your own society's creation which doesn't undermine my argument but, your own.

Interesting video



Side note: You kept scoffing at any Harvard or Yale study I would use in our previous arguments and now you're linking to one yourself. Either you had a change of heart or you've become a hypocrite, I hope it's the former.

As for your study, the interpretation is (borrowing from wiki)

Theory of conformism: describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.

Anyways, there is also the Stanford Prison Study that was done in the 1970's that "argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support".

Both of these are arguments that say authority can make humans "evil".

Yale in the 1960's was a lot different than the Yale of 2013. Least to mention that the location of this perticular experiment is irrelevent because it has been replicated by nearly ever major university on the planet and taught in every university psycology course.