RE: People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules
January 24, 2012 at 1:44 am
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2012 at 2:08 am by Whateverist.)
(January 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: 5 people in a company. One is the owner, one is the boss, 3 are regular workers.
Get rid of one worker, take his pay and give 80% of it to the owner and 20% of it to the boss in raises and bonuses, and scare the crap out of the two existing workers to make them glad they still have their jobs. You might even convince them to take a pay cut to keep their jobs.
I'd say this is a good argument against unchecked capitalism. I hope we are nearing the tipping point where the number of people who accept that capitalism can only thrive when left unregulated and unaccountable are insufficient to maintain the spell. It is not and never was true. In my 20's I may have said amen to anarchy. Now I think it is an unnecessarily reckless way to compensate for what is rotten in the system we now have.
(January 23, 2012 at 8:01 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:(January 23, 2012 at 10:24 am)whateverist Wrote: That points out another problem for this utopia. Even if you find some like minded folks to commune with, you can't control who your neighbors over the hill will be. If they aren't bought into your plan, they may just see easy pickings where you see home.Because that NEVER happens with all the other types of government models. Democracy makes it to where a single homesteader can control those neighbors over the hill..
Oh wait...no it doesnt...
So why does anarchy get strongly attacked on questions like this, yet you act as if it doesnt already exist in a democracy, or any other govt model for that matter.
funny how you have all types of people who believe in all types of govt models living openly (or quietly) in all types of govt models.
Look dude, for once could you actually put forth a DECENT argument instead of these poorly thought out "what if" questions.
I'm afraid I'd need a clearer idea of what you are talking about before I would know if I have anything I want to argue.
For the time being I find myself just dumbfounded by its apparent absurdity. Like most utopian schemes, it seems to be contingent on an inadequate conception of human nature. That isn't an argument, just an observation. I wonder if infatuation with utopian schemes is a kind of residue of a formerly theistic mindset, a search for paradise lost.
