Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Maybe the question should be whether or not using a very organized forceful group of people (government) to inflict their will on man is better than not prohibiting man from doing whatever he wants.
|
You mean that the question is between using or not using initial brute force upon man? The answer to that is the underlying premise of my whole entry above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Well, I'm a kind of tribal anarchist, I guess. But to me, at this point, it doesn't matter what you believe in when there's 7 billion people on the planet. With all the people we have now, you can't take a piss without tresspassing on another.
|
I take several pisses every day without disturbing anyone and his grandma, but I think I see what you're hinting at. The limitations of everyman's freedom due to other people's presence? Well, that's what creates the need of an underlying moral system. On a desert island on which you're alone there is neither any need nor any possibility to exercise moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
So step one of my never to happen utopia (that would admittedly probably turn to **** in actual practice anyway) is to convince people of the obvious truth that there are way too many of us and then to start on a cooperative way to reduce the world's population to a small fraction of what it is now. I think 500 million might be low enough.
|
How did you reach that number? How many is too many? According to what and who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
This might not answer your question completely because the issue of the victimized individual still comes into play. But with more elbow room, way more elbow room, humanity could spread out more allowing people more freedom to act before it becomes a tresspass.
|
What exactly do you consider trespass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
With regards to straight out exploitation of the individual, well, living in Sweden you may have some reason to believe that this is something that government is effective at preventing. In much of the world there is no force more effective at destroying the rights of the individual through violence than the current government.
|
This I am actually glad that you brought up.
Living in Sweden, I have much reason to believe that the one thing government - regardless of intentions - is effective at is the exploitation of the individual. The big welfare state is more or less embedded in the bedrock up here and in many, if not most, people's minds it's taken for granted as a guarantee for the fulfilling of "public needs". That's why so many screams out loud when, after much ado, any state company or institution is privatized or a certain part of the market deregulated, because people are lulled to believe that some things "just has to be run by the state".
That is a discussion all in itself but what you're pointing out in the last sentence is definitely correct, regardless of what kind of extented government we're looking at. Bear in mind that the kind of governmental control I'm referring to in my original post is a night watchman state and not a welfare state of the swedish kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
I do admit that at this point I fear my neighbors as much as the police. So besides lowering the world's population, in order for anarchy to work people need to learn how to behave. Mankind is going to have to find a way to start weeding out undesirables. At this point, it seems obvious to me that it's the least desirable people of all who are breeding the most. Maybe lettting this planet go all the down the toilet is better than the measures it would take to prevent it.
|
If you're actually serious in your views of regarding some people undesireable, then I'd like to know what people you're primarily referring to and for whom they are undesireable.