Existentialism
-
Strapping Young Lad
Yeah it wouldn't be utopian by any stretch. I imagine it would be like armed neighbors protecting their neighborhood or street. -
Heretic
I remember a number of years back, my best friend was into reading Camus and Sartre and doing the whole "angsty coffee shop philosopher" thing. I like to think that me repeatedly using profane and derogatory language to attack his sexuality helped drive him out of that phase.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't be bringing deep thoughts around me. Not tolerating that shit! -
BCSbunk
No, that is not what it is like in no government societies.Strapping Young Lad wrote: Yeah it wouldn't be utopian by any stretch. I imagine it would be like armed neighbors protecting their neighborhood or street.
Some like to list Somalia as an example but I will eliminate this immediately from contention. That is an example of authoritarianism run rampant. Different factions fighting for authority and control and not working on social order and benefitting society.
I know that what I speak will not happen in my lifetime those that govern do not want to let loose of those reigns so it is not going to happen, but I do not think it is ideologic only.
With proper education one day that will be the norm of society and where humans are headed in the long run. -
O-Trap
A couple questions.BCSbunk wrote: It would not be idealistic nor a utopia. There are examples of this in existence on a smaller scale. The Piraha tribe is one of many examples with no governors of any kind yet they have laws that they enforce themselves.
Now you can claim that it would fail on a larger scale, but it has not been done on a larger scale. However there are examples now of societies with laws without a governing force to dictate.
There would still be crime as is today and it is not utopia, I agree that no one has right to extend authority over others that are not violating the harm principle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Government is not necessary entity, it is a contingent entity.
Why base it on the harm principle?
Who determines what does and does not violate the harm principle in the case of disagreement on the subject? More specifically, who gets to determine what constitutes "harm" and what constitutes "cause?" As I recall, these are never answered by Mill.
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force? -
Strapping Young Lad
Ha! yeah, that shit can be annoying but at it's core it's relevent. I prefer the loud, fast guitars and angry screaming of bands like Choking Victim and Leftover Crack over coffee shop philosophers, to get my 'anti-authority', 'fuck the system', 'life sucks' fix.Heretic wrote: I remember a number of years back, my best friend was into reading Camus and Sartre and doing the whole "angsty coffee shop philosopher" thing. I like to think that me repeatedly using profane and derogatory language to attack his sexuality helped drive him out of that phase.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't be bringing deep thoughts around me. Not tolerating that shit!
Its the same message but the medium is very different. -
BCSbunkO-Trap wrote:
A couple questions.BCSbunk wrote: It would not be idealistic nor a utopia. There are examples of this in existence on a smaller scale. The Piraha tribe is one of many examples with no governors of any kind yet they have laws that they enforce themselves.
Now you can claim that it would fail on a larger scale, but it has not been done on a larger scale. However there are examples now of societies with laws without a governing force to dictate.
There would still be crime as is today and it is not utopia, I agree that no one has right to extend authority over others that are not violating the harm principle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Government is not necessary entity, it is a contingent entity.
Why base it on the harm principle?
Who determines what does and does not violate the harm principle in the case of disagreement on the subject? More specifically, who gets to determine what constitutes "harm" and what constitutes "cause?" As I recall, these are never answered by Mill.
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
I am not sure I understand your question what do you mean base it off the harm principle?Why base it on the harm principle?
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
Education and upbringing. The same as the Piraha tribe. The societal bonds would be strong because of education even stronger than the Piraha because of technology. People would not want to in defiance of the laws because that fractures society. Again this would not be in an absolute sense as no system can eliminate crime competely.What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
My biggest argument is that government is not a necessary truth but a contingent one as there are societies that exist and are "successful" (open to debate) in the world. -
Heretic
A far superior medium. Because you can get pumped up by the message instead of getting bummed over it.Strapping Young Lad wrote:
Ha! yeah, that shit can be annoying but at it's core it's relevent. I prefer the loud, fast guitars and angry screaming of bands like Choking Victim and Leftover Crack over coffee shop philosophers, to get my 'anti-authority', 'fuck the system', 'life sucks' fix.Heretic wrote: I remember a number of years back, my best friend was into reading Camus and Sartre and doing the whole "angsty coffee shop philosopher" thing. I like to think that me repeatedly using profane and derogatory language to attack his sexuality helped drive him out of that phase.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't be bringing deep thoughts around me. Not tolerating that shit!
Its the same message but the medium is very different. -
O-Trap
What I mean is, why use the harm principle as the plum line for what should and shouldn't be acceptable behavior?BCSbunk wrote:O-Trap wrote:
A couple questions.BCSbunk wrote: It would not be idealistic nor a utopia. There are examples of this in existence on a smaller scale. The Piraha tribe is one of many examples with no governors of any kind yet they have laws that they enforce themselves.
Now you can claim that it would fail on a larger scale, but it has not been done on a larger scale. However there are examples now of societies with laws without a governing force to dictate.
There would still be crime as is today and it is not utopia, I agree that no one has right to extend authority over others that are not violating the harm principle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Government is not necessary entity, it is a contingent entity.
Why base it on the harm principle?
Who determines what does and does not violate the harm principle in the case of disagreement on the subject? More specifically, who gets to determine what constitutes "harm" and what constitutes "cause?" As I recall, these are never answered by Mill.
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
I am not sure I understand your question what do you mean base it off the harm principle?Why base it on the harm principle?
Excuse my skepticism, but quite honestly, it would seem that some of the most educated people in the world have done things that would be considered highly unethical, and would certainly not be considered to have passed the harm principle. While I think education is very important, I don't think it is the end-all of ethical problems in society.BCSbunk wrote:What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
Education and upbringing. The same as the Piraha tribe. The societal bonds would be strong because of education even stronger than the Piraha because of technology. People would not want to in defiance of the laws because that fractures society. Again this would not be in an absolute sense as no system can eliminate crime competely.What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
My biggest argument is that government is not a necessary truth but a contingent one as there are societies that exist and are "successful" (open to debate) in the world.
As far as upbringing, I don't think I trust that either. Any movement throughout history which defied the vastly accepted social norm typically starts with very few people ... sometimes even one person.
As far as social pressures to not fracture society, it would appear difficult to control how selfish a person actually is (which of course, may or may not align with how selfish one comes across). Given the innate instinct of self-preservation, I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, instinct will eventually overtake societal pressures, if not in everyone, at least in some.
Plus, most of the developed countries in the world are increasingly individualistic as opposed to communal, placing the importance of the individual over the importance of the community. The United States is a perfect example of this.
Also, what prevents it from becoming what is depicted in the Simon Pegg film "Hot Fuzz" where the people become SO focused on preserving the strength of the community that the rights of an individual get trampled by the perceived "greater good?" If social bonds are of such importance, I'm suspecting that a society will protect the bonds between the majority, even if at the expense of the minority.
Finally, given the self-focused nature of humanity, I'd be willing to bet that any appearance of an importance placed on a societal greater good will only go as far as the appearance. What I mean is this: If a person realizes that he can do something selfish while maintaining the strength of his own bonds within the community (essentially, not get caught), he would likely do it. It would be having his cake, and eating it, too.
Ultimately, while not a Utopia, I think this could, and thus would, be far too unstable, granting far too much trust to each member of the society. One bad apple would upset the cart, and with the number of apples in some of the larger countries, there is almost no chance that there wouldn't be plenty of bad apples.
As far as success of such communities, I'm not necessarily certain that's even up for debate, as "successful" is virtually an arbitrary word. Probably a more universal one would be "functional" or "possible for perpetuation." -
BCSbunk
I appreciate your critique. You are missing one thing. Laws would still here. The only real difference is no government. Law is not synonomous with government. There is no need for rulers/governors we can rule ourselves and there are models that are functional.(I agree that functional is a better term than successful)O-Trap wrote:
What I mean is, why use the harm principle as the plum line for what should and shouldn't be acceptable behavior?BCSbunk wrote:O-Trap wrote:
A couple questions.BCSbunk wrote: It would not be idealistic nor a utopia. There are examples of this in existence on a smaller scale. The Piraha tribe is one of many examples with no governors of any kind yet they have laws that they enforce themselves.
Now you can claim that it would fail on a larger scale, but it has not been done on a larger scale. However there are examples now of societies with laws without a governing force to dictate.
There would still be crime as is today and it is not utopia, I agree that no one has right to extend authority over others that are not violating the harm principle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Government is not necessary entity, it is a contingent entity.
Why base it on the harm principle?
Who determines what does and does not violate the harm principle in the case of disagreement on the subject? More specifically, who gets to determine what constitutes "harm" and what constitutes "cause?" As I recall, these are never answered by Mill.
What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
I am not sure I understand your question what do you mean base it off the harm principle?Why base it on the harm principle?
Excuse my skepticism, but quite honestly, it would seem that some of the most educated people in the world have done things that would be considered highly unethical, and would certainly not be considered to have passed the harm principle. While I think education is very important, I don't think it is the end-all of ethical problems in society.BCSbunk wrote:What prevents a mob mentality from causing the people to act in defiance of such law?
Education and upbringing. The same as the Piraha tribe. The societal bonds would be strong because of education even stronger than the Piraha because of technology. People would not want to in defiance of the laws because that fractures society. Again this would not be in an absolute sense as no system can eliminate crime competely.What prevents an individual from amassing the means to force others to become subject to his will? Essentially, what prevents such a society from becoming a "he-who-has-the-biggest-guns-wins" society, where a single person, or a small group are able to put themselves in a position of power with the use of force?
My biggest argument is that government is not a necessary truth but a contingent one as there are societies that exist and are "successful" (open to debate) in the world.
As far as upbringing, I don't think I trust that either. Any movement throughout history which defied the vastly accepted social norm typically starts with very few people ... sometimes even one person.
As far as social pressures to not fracture society, it would appear difficult to control how selfish a person actually is (which of course, may or may not align with how selfish one comes across). Given the innate instinct of self-preservation, I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, instinct will eventually overtake societal pressures, if not in everyone, at least in some.
Plus, most of the developed countries in the world are increasingly individualistic as opposed to communal, placing the importance of the individual over the importance of the community. The United States is a perfect example of this.
Also, what prevents it from becoming what is depicted in the Simon Pegg film "Hot Fuzz" where the people become SO focused on preserving the strength of the community that the rights of an individual get trampled by the perceived "greater good?" If social bonds are of such importance, I'm suspecting that a society will protect the bonds between the majority, even if at the expense of the minority.
Finally, given the self-focused nature of humanity, I'd be willing to bet that any appearance of an importance placed on a societal greater good will only go as far as the appearance. What I mean is this: If a person realizes that he can do something selfish while maintaining the strength of his own bonds within the community (essentially, not get caught), he would likely do it. It would be having his cake, and eating it, too.
Ultimately, while not a Utopia, I think this could, and thus would, be far too unstable, granting far too much trust to each member of the society. One bad apple would upset the cart, and with the number of apples in some of the larger countries, there is almost no chance that there wouldn't be plenty of bad apples.
As far as success of such communities, I'm not necessarily certain that's even up for debate, as "successful" is virtually an arbitrary word. Probably a more universal one would be "functional" or "possible for perpetuation."
Your critique seems to miss that point that law would still be a part of society. There would be no one or group to govern the others. The other measure are what I think that the functional models are doing.
As I stated above government is not a necessary truth but a contigent one and I do agree there are flaws and there are flaws in every political theory I have ever seen there are always counter arguments.
I think it depends on what a person values as to the importance they weigh upon a particular system. -
O-Trap
I'm not necessarily forgetting that laws would exist. My objections are thus:BCSbunk wrote: I appreciate your critique. You are missing one thing. Laws would still here. The only real difference is no government. Law is not synonomous with government. There is no need for rulers/governors we can rule ourselves and there are models that are functional.(I agree that functional is a better term than successful)
Your critique seems to miss that point that law would still be a part of society. There would be no one or group to govern the others. The other measure are what I think that the functional models are doing.
As I stated above government is not a necessary truth but a contigent one and I do agree there are flaws and there are flaws in every political theory I have ever seen there are always counter arguments.
I think it depends on what a person values as to the importance they weigh upon a particular system.
If the majority of the populace decide to ignore a law in order to oppress the rights of one or a few, because somehow, they have it in their minds that it is for the "greater good of society," who is going to stop them?
A scenario (admittedly with extreme proportions): 99% of the population wants to violate a law. 1% wants to adhere to the law. The 1% tells the 99% that what they wish to do would be breaking the law.
The 99% then have the capability of saying, "So what?" What will prevent them from doing so? Their own sense of ethics?
Essentially, what you have is a population that puts itself on the honor system (in regard to not breaking the laws in place). The laws, if enforced by the people, can also be neglected or changed at the whim of the people.
In a sense, we can see this in history. In the 1950s, the law was such that it was illegal to kill a black man. However, in many communities, even those authorities within the community would not enforce that, let alone the communities themselves.
Anytime a portion of a community, whether 1% or 99%, has the ability to say "Fuck the laws," the laws themselves become meaningless. A law is only as powerful as the punishment for breaking such a law, and the punishment is only as powerful as how rigidly it will be enforced. Letting "might make right," as it were, and letting the majority dictate which laws will and will not be enforced (which, practically speaking, means they will get to determine what is law) is a dangerous precedent, especially if your behavior exists within the minority scope.