not really... i think these people who are rioting/protesting were inspired to do so by the movement in tunisia rather than some vague jihadi bullshit.. i've yet to see the destruction of the pyramids on their list of demands... plus nobody even worships the egyptian gods anymore while buddhism is a real alternative to islam
though i do have to give credit where its due.. the scenario of muslims trying to blow up the pyramids or sphinx on some religious quest is quite amusing.. would make for a good die hard movie or something
Fair enough, but then I'm to assume humans have always been held in a "unnatural state" and never been allowed to "evolve into a natural state and create a society based on love."
That being said, how do you know humans can, if they've never have?
how do you know we never have? when the chains are off, we will go back to a natural living. its not a case of wanting or trying, it will naturally happen. it wont happen overnight, but in time you would see less crime because there would be no need to commit a crime because you would have everything you need. we always have had everything we need lol. thats the irony.
the system cons us into thinking we need the latest ipod or new fashions, and people will steal and kill to get these things. money is the main cause of this evil. this system is obviously not working and will eventually fall
the question is how can we move towards this new system without creating chaos? it would be like cutting an alcoholic off from the beer. at first there would be all sorts of chaos and negativity, but when the body adjusts it will begin to heal.
im not saying there is some utopia waiting for us, but im sure we can create a better system.
i suggest watching the 2nd zeitgesit documentary for a clear idea on this.
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
If we originally had everything we needed, and desired nothing, then we never would have had a "system". Governments emerged from populations, so no system occurred that wasn't allowed to do so by humans; the idea that people had everything they wanted and then decided they would give it up for no reason at all is ludicrous. Systems don't pop up overnight, they are created overtime, with consent all the way.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
that's a fair point. i don't think there was a system in place at the beginning. but one was created and it has been manipulated over the course of time to suit a tiny few, not the majority, which is the point i was making earlier.
and there's nothing wrong with governments per se, if theres true freedom for all. humans consented to a system with government yes, but thats not surprising considering how easy we are manipulated.
but i think something happened back then and i don't think people are ready for the answer yet
and what is it you think humans didnt have at the dawn of time? did they need tv's or ipods? explain to me
hard to say, people over here are much more sedated and lazy to get up off there couch, let alone start a revolution.
the trick is to get people to believe they are free, then they wont rebel, which is what is happening. thank god in egypt they are not so stupid
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
How do you know we have? Circles and circles, see? But the "natural world" or nature is fairly violent. So ancient humans living in a Garden of Eden type of utopia goes against the grain.
Yes, I'm well aware of marketing. I have young children and see how it affects them with the "I want it; I need it."
Seems unlikely imo. Maybe use Roddenberry's Star Trek as an example. The start of humanity finding harmony was had with first contact with an alien species. But that brings up a slew of other questions.
Creating a "better" system won't happen without tearing down the current one, which will likely only happen through massive conflict, deaths and one side (the "better") being victorious. So to create your new world you're going to need to kill a lot of people and you'll likely be forcing people that don't want to live by your "better" standards to live by them, thereby you've become the monster you initial fought against.
I'm getting the film; will try and check it out in the next couple of weeks when I have time.
Consent of the majority, i'd imagine. I mean, maybe the idea of having "chiefs" came to cavemen only after some pro-elder thugs beat up the young ones, but, I doubt it. It seems likely there was some general consensus that sort of system should exist.
oh, ok, I'd disagree with your concept of cavemen sans chiefs though. I don't think there have ever been groups of people who evolved into a culture where there was no central authority.
I think the consensus you are referring to might be the fact that our genes predispose us to have group leaders, and genes that produced that behaviour were more likely to survive in the wild, not some choice by rational people to be part of a group because it serves their interests. Hell, look at modern society, there are people who go off to the desert to live "outside society", and the benefits of our modern society far surpass the benefits of belonging to caveman society.
and really, I find it hard to believe there would ever be 100% agreement among a group of people.
Well, I think systems of government have always existed. We even see proto-governments in chimpanzees, or really any species with "alpha males". In humans, this would be hunter-gatherer chiefs or elders, or expanding this system for agricultures dawn, all the way down to king and queens and the rest is known history.
The real problem I have with the way you frame this, and what kind of separates "conspiracy theories" in general from being just facts, is that it seems to me the laziest sort of blame shifting. "Its all the elites fault". Well yeah, corporations, politicians, etc. definitely deserve blame, but everywhere along the way they were voted for by the average citizens... we voted with our ballots and we voted with our dollars. If everyone had kept themselves educated and looked towards the future, or appreciated the concept of innovation in politics, this sort of system never could have existed. I'd say the blame falls on everyone.
Well, yeah, that was a bit hastily stated. I agree with you that central authority has always existed. I think authority grows organically from the populations when people allow it to do so. But it seems to me like most anarchist types have this notion that there's a "society" or "elite class" that exists completely independently of general society and just enforces rules, offering nothing in return. The rich are humans too, and they came from the same social network as the average and poor. I think we need to acknowledge our own role in society's evolution before we can change it.
I wouldn't say that there was "consent all the way." There are many examples of unpopular, controversial, or blatant laws, crimes etc. that were enacted without regard for certain people in history. just sayin'.
__________________ Listen, boy. Have you ever had your scrotum pulled off by a mountain goat and seen him sell it on eBay a day later?
I have a hard time believing these could have been passed if the majority of people had taken a really hard stance against them. The only cases I think are real exceptions are things like invasions where the system literally IS coming from outside the population.
but that gets into the sort of Kafka-esque qualities of the state. While it does provide, it can be responsible for the most heinous violence delivered on people who don't comply with its will, EDIT: which is often nonsensical and arbitrary.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Feb 4th, 2011 at 05:24 AM
But what is the "will of the state"? It can only do as much as people let it get away with, so really its not like the state is some actual entity. Its just a category of people that the population has vested power in, and its power is derived from that same population.
sure, the state acts at the will or even the behest of the majority, to apply often completely incomprehendable rules that often enact a level of violence against individuals that criminals could never reach.
the obvious example is terrorism. No matter how bad the bomb throwing anarchists were in the 19th century or al qaeda is today, victims of those represent a fraction of those impacted and killed by state terrorism. You don't even have to include things like all out warfare, but if you do (and I don't personally know how else you could interpret "shock and awe") the comparison is almost humerously one sided.
I dont disagree with your point though. I'm just saying, consent really doesn't justify the actions.
I never said it justified the actions. I think the complete opposite. Those actions cannot be justified, and need to be ended. What i'm saying though, is that to end the state tyranny we need to understand our role in creating it, and withdraw the support that has been implicit in society. I think anthropomorphizing the "system" as some kind of boogeyman (my main problem with Deano) really is counterproductive, because it makes it seem like we're going to have to battle some kind of alien force. Not really. We just need to empower our own control over society.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 1st, 2011 12:07 AM
