Originally posted by Dolos
Would you rather it be survival of the fittest. Anarchism?I think it's far better than what we have now. It's pure, motiveless logic. Quantum politics, if you will. 😂
what anarchists have ever described their system as survival of the fittest? that is almost a tautological component of fascism...
Originally posted by Oliver North
what anarchists have ever described their system as survival of the fittest?
Originally posted by Wikipedia
Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[1][2] However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism solely on this basis.[3] Therefore, they argue instead that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.
??????
Originally posted by Dolos
[quote=Wikipedia]Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[1][2] However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism solely on this basis.[3] Therefore, they argue instead that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.
?????? [/QUOTE]
how do you possibly interpret that line as "survival of the fittest"?
it is the opposition to authority. In fact, anarchists would oppose the biological concept of "fitness" in human society, as it creates an authoritarian hierarchy.
Originally posted by Oliver North
??????how do you possibly interpret that line as "survival of the fittest"it is the opposition to authority. In fact, anarchists would oppose the biological concept of "fitness" in human society, as it creates an authoritarian hierarchy.
Natural selection results in hierarchy less in a free for all without rules than in a governed society with rules?
Originally posted by Dolos
Natural selection is more the term I was going for.
what anarchists support natural selection as an organizing principle of human society?
again, anarchists would oppose this concept on the basis that it creates castes between those who are fit and those who are not, and empowers not only the "fit", but especially those who get to define what "fitness" is in the first place.
please, please stop talking about anarchy...
Originally posted by Dolos
Natural selection results in hierarchy less in a free for all without rules than in a governed society with rules?
no...
where did I contend that anarchy was a result of natural selection?
Originally posted by Dolos
What are gang rivalries?
what is a gang?
Originally posted by Dolos
Forget urban gangs, tribal affronts, packs of animals, etc. It's inherent, and more recurrent the more sophistication of government breaks down.
you do realize that political anarchism (as opposed to philosophical) is not against authoritarian structures, it simply demands they be justified in ways that the modern state cannot be. For instance, here is Chomsky, please watch this before continuing this debate, as I'm almost entirely convinced you have no idea what anarchy is:
EDIT: ugh, again, sorry Sym, I think the patenting of DNA is a really interesting topic, if you have something you want to discuss, I'm totally down. I'm going to defend my politics though 😛
Originally posted by Oliver North
(as opposed to philosophical)
Looks like I brought up the wrong definition. :facepalm:
My original statement pertaining to, "would you rather have": would be the philosophical term, not the one I quoted afterward.
You're talking decentralized government...I'm talking a totally ungoverned society, a total anarchy. What a cluster****. 😕
Now do you see what I was saying earlier though? Or did you lose that train of thought.
I actually believe this 'Cybernated' technocracy would utilize elements of political anarchism, as what is efficient for one group may not be efficient for another. It's the breakdown of sociology, as well as resource management, which is also very sporadic depending on the variables that arise when a society is spread out.
However, due to the fact that perpetually sophisticated information technology does sort of shrink the world with more and more synchronized communication and coordinated effectiveness worldwide - anarchy would only be useful for colonies in outer space.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is that anarchism anymore? I get the sentiment but not the name.
its about justification
I agree, a valid critique might be that any such structures may be indistinguishable from a "form" of government (not any that exist in the real world), but the term "anarchy" has never been defined as "there are no limits on human behaviour".
the distinction between political and philosophical, in my mind (there are as many definitions of anarchy as there are anarchists [another valid critique]) is that political anarchists actually have a system they think is justified and represents an "end point", whereas philosophical anarchists almost accept those critiques by definition, and work within the dominant framework to oppose unjustified authority, even if it is some type of "anarchist authority".
Something I've always wanted to write is a critique of human biology and psychology from an anarchist perspective. Basically, outlining the reasons why we are, genetically, incapable of a truly anarchist utopia. A political anarchist (as I define them) would be against such a critique, whereas a philosophical anarchist would work within this paradigm.
Because there are so many possible definitions of anarchy, it could or could not be considered "anarchy", depending on who you talk to. As I've said before, the only people who have ever questioned whether I am actually an anarchist or not are Anarchists [notice the use of capitalization]. Capital A anarchists would probably argue this point with you, I'm willing to accept all forms of human organization are probably, in some way, authoritarian. I'd rather try to reduce this to the lowest possible interference in people's lives rather than support some ideology that wants to "smash the state" or whatever.
I hope that gets at what you are saying.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It sounds like libtertarianism. lulz
if you go back 30-40 years, there is a very thin line between libertarianism, objectivism and conservative anarchy.
The Pauls have had, imho, a very negative impact on this in recent time.
Originally posted by Oliver North
...but the term "anarchy" has never been defined as "there are no limits on human behaviour".
I thought the more pure definition would be the complement (stats) to that "event": Humans are free to make whatever decisions they wish.
Originally posted by Oliver North
DP, my bad
No one should have to apologize for double penetration. 313
I don't think humans know what's best for them.
One thing I do know is that, while behavior may be very broad, humans are limited by this very fact. Jumbled information, lack of communication.
One IQ of 200 is better than 200 IQs of 1. The high IQ is a centralized group of people and how in sync with one another they are, the low IQs are decentralized group of people and how in sync they are.
That's why I disagree with you. It's for a larger effect, a larger capacity to make things better for everyone in the form of scientific discovery and innovative technological progress - and, therefore, societal progress.
Originally posted by Dolos
One IQ of 200 is better than 200 IQs of 1. The high IQ is a centralized group of people and how in sync with one another they are, the low IQs are decentralized group of people and how in sync they are.
What about 200 IQs of 75 organized and tasked in such a manner that each task is easily done by 1 of the 75 toting IQ peeps but the distributed task among the 200 works to such an excellent extent that they accomplish a far more efficient and intelligent task than even 10 people with an IQ of 200 are capable of accomplishing?
AHA!
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about 200 IQs of 75 organized and tasked in such a manner that each task is easily done by 1 of the 75 toting IQ peeps but the distributed task among the 200 works to such an excellent extent that they accomplish a far more efficient and intelligent task than even 10 people with an IQ of 200 are capable of accomplishing?AHA!
But this single task is very limited, no? It has to suit 200 fancies.
And no longer applies because IQ is 75, not one. Let's see what an IQ of 150,000 can do in that same task.
😱
Humans don't lack a certain capacity, they lack coordination for the right capacity that best suits them.
That means 1 IQ of 150,000 has to monitor and find what these 200 IQs of 75 will work best at together for the greatest mutual benefit.
Cybernated Government. My point, alas.
Originally posted by Dolos
But this single task is very limited, no? It has to suit 200 fancies.And no longer applies because IQ is 75, not one. Let's see what an IQ of 150,000 can do in that same task.
😱
I had to turn up the IQ a bit because they had to be intelligent enough to complete semi-complicated (complicated enough that it would bar every other animal in existence except humans) tasks. 🙁
And I'd imagine that a human with an IQ of 150,000 still would not be able to compete with a well-organized group of the 200 I mentioned...because that being would be limited by physical capability unless that task offered a long time for that being to alter themselves or create Artificially intelligent bots to assist.
Originally posted by dadudemon
because that being would be limited by physical capability unless that task offered a long time for that being to alter themselves or create Artificially intelligent bots to assist.
A technoprogressive solution?
That's the thing about a cybernated government, all technoprogressive solutions are viable, there is no discussion, if it is the best solution, it will be utilized.
Whereas the US Supreme Court acts mainly out of irrelevant, monetary driven motives.