The Ideal Form of Government

[triplesix]

Quote:How did human beings live so respectfully for millions of years before there was a form of government?

I'm pretty sure they raped and murdered ambivalently... not "live so respectfully."

[resonate]

Quote:

Quote:How did human beings live so respectfully for millions of years before there was a form of government?

I'm pretty sure they raped and murdered ambivalently... not "live so respectfully."

How are you sure?

[10/6]

Quote:

Quote:How did human beings live so respectfully for millions of years before there was a form of government?

I'm pretty sure they raped and murdered ambivalently... not "live so respectfully."

this is the standard Hobbsian, 'Enlightenment' thinking which holds no basis in fact but has become an excuse for states, or the leaders thereof to pursue their greedy, power hungry aims.

in reality, given that all primates live within families (as far as i am aware without exception), i find it difficult to imagine how humanity could have lived otherwise. and, when one considers how vulnerable an individual human is, alone, against the forces of nature it seems ludicrous to imagine humanity in any other format apart from social groups.

one must also remember, in nature, physical violence (excepting for food, protection and procreation) is always the last option. remember, physical violence is very, very dangerous, to all protagonists, even the winner.

from this perspective, i would suggest, violence was not so common. in fact, until humanity had spread out across the planet, and overburdened its resources there would be little reason for violence at all.

so 666, do not fall for the lies the state and its education program attempt to force down the throats of its inhabitants, purely to validate its own existence.

[MC David]

Quote:

Quote:Triplesix I can't believe you're a Zionist man. How can I debate with you about any of this stuff given that?

Since when was I a Zionist? I have far too little information on the subject to go either way. My whole life I've avoided that subject of conversation. Does a dispersed population have a right to its geographic location of origin? No. But people tried to make it happen. So we're left with what we have.

My attitude towards the whole thing is people are people and I'm sick of the subject. Anyone who wants to be a Zionist Jew or a Palestinian Muslim is just perpetuating their own misery. I like to feel I'm looking at the entire debate from a higher perspective.

Unfortunately they still do the shit they do. Personally I don't like anyone who puts too much stock into their own ethnicity or religion. It's stupid, petty, and in reality, illusory.

I'm sorry if I came across as Zionist when I previously pissed everybody off. My only point was that by choosing a side, Palestinian for most of the anti-Zionists it seems, you are limiting yourself to the same stupid illusion that they are. It only perpetuates the damage, is what I'm saying.

I only mean to say that no human being deserves any hatred, Jew, Palestinian, whatever. There are a lot of people out there making mistakes, but I can only hope they see the light in themselves and change the way they live. I feel it to be wasted emotion to feel any differently.

When I condemn the anti-Zionists of the forum, it is not because I hold a Zionist point of view, but rather because I condemn hatred wherever I encounter it, "rightly" deserved or otherwise. As far as Zionism is concerned, I don't think anyone is correct and there are quite a few at fault.

I know that for the wealth of knowledge many of you contain concerning the misdeeds of Israel and the Jews, there are vast swathes of knowledge concerning other guilty parties involved in the same subject or others. On top of that, I choose to concentrate on other efforts, particularly not finding who is guilty, but learning about the opposite end of the spectrum and learning about the good people that have lived and understanding their legacy.

I merely find a lot of negativity in the Zionism discussions and I am adverse to that. Hatred clouds the mind and suffers the innocent. I only hope that love, compassion and understanding are not lost in the cultivation of anger, resentment and spite.

If I came across as arrogant or preachy I apologize for that as well. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. I have a lot of respect for you, Infinite. I enjoy a lot of your posts. Know at least that I do not think you an adversary.

Peace.

Okay I hear you, I agree w/that perspective for the most part. I thought you had sided only with the Zionists. & I don't hate Jews I actually try to love all people & only hate injustice. I realize that there are injustices committed on both sides but we tend to side w/the Palestinians b/c there are more injustices committed on the Israeli side & they're systematic widespread injustices. One side is the occupier & the other is the occupied, one the false flagger the other the patsy. So that's how it works out like that w/it coming off one sided but I realize that not all Jews are for it & also that many who are for it don't understand it. & I think the hatred you're talking about has a bad effect b/c we can't convince people to look at the other side of an argument if we come off as only attacking & don't clearly explain why. So I think you may be leaning a bit too far to the pro-Zionist side but that you bring up some good points as well.

I recommend checking out Jack Bernstein's writings though:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/The.Life.of.a...w.in.Israel.htm

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Jack.Be...l.to.Israel.htm

[Guest]

Quote:

Quote:How did human beings live so respectfully for millions of years before there was a form of government?

I'm pretty sure they raped and murdered ambivalently... not "live so respectfully."

oh come on :drunk:

[rsol]

Humans haven't changed for 10,000s of years. Any power has a center.

The forms of governance the trip6 stated is generally how communist china is operated.:)thought id let you know. villages to provinces and eventually to the heads of state. Not a new model.

Limited Private business in control of essential services is handing monopoly to something that works for profit. Essential services may need to run at a loss at some point in order to be a service.

TBH most of the governing bodies we have, on the whole, don't do a bad job. Its an honor system, like most things out there. Thats generally where it all falls over.

[triplesix]

Quote:in reality, given that all primates live within families (as far as i am aware without exception), i find it difficult to imagine how humanity could have lived otherwise. and, when one considers how vulnerable an individual human is, alone, against the forces of nature it seems ludicrous to imagine humanity in any other format apart from social groups.

one must also remember, in nature, physical violence (excepting for food, protection and procreation) is always the last option. remember, physical violence is very, very dangerous, to all protagonists, even the winner.

from this perspective, i would suggest, violence was not so common. in fact, until humanity had spread out across the planet, and overburdened its resources there would be little reason for violence at all.

so 666, do not fall for the lies the state and its education program attempt to force down the throats of its inhabitants, purely to validate its own existence.

Everything you state as evidence against a violent past to mankind points to me as evidence for it.

Look at fucking Ötzi the Iceman, dude. Ötzi has been established to have been alive around 3300 BC in the Neolithic era though his lifestyle was more similar to the Mesolithic peoples. He died at 45 years old, which was quite old for the time, showing evidence of a lifetime of abuse, not all of which could be attributed to normal wear and tear. Ötzi had healed fractured ribs and a healed broken nose. He died violently with a deep cut near his thumb down to the bone indicating a wound received while trying to deflect blows with his hands. He also got shot in the back with a fucking arrow and that's probably what killed him. On top of that, he had two arrows with blood on them from two other individuals, which he had retrieved after shooting them. On top of that, Ötzi's position when they found him indicated he had been rolled over onto his stomach so as to remove the arrow shaft. I'd say that's evidence he lived in some violent times.

Another example is peat bog corpses. These are more often than not clear murder cases, or at least examples of violent death. Throats being slit, heads bashed in. We're talking about a time where all you had to do was kill them when no one was around and who would ever be the wiser? Unless of course bad blood was known between the murder and victim but now we're just getting over-speculative.

First I'm provided the Wild West as an example of anarchy in action and then I'm to be persuaded it is less violent than established society to the East?

Of course the first police forces were paramilitary forces designed to mostly protect the interests of the patriarch but allow history to show us its follies. Having a general police force has greatly benefited mankind. Having a war on drugs and a suppression of political dissent is clearly the villain here. If police were trained properly, and not to be useful NWO thugs, they could be a significant source of comfort for most people.

I am sorry, but if any of you held any credibility for me before, you are shattering it with your delusions of an orderly and civil society before constitutions, civil liberties, and birth rights were established and protected under the law. Violence had been the way of life for most people before even the twentieth century and ever escalating violence as history is traced backwards.

Of course it was dangerous for any number of men to meet other men in battle, but it wouldn't be hard for ten to twenty thugs to jump some fool and kill his ass without running into any trouble whatsoever.

Of course before humanity enveloped the globe and began rubbing elbows with one another violence was minimal, but now humanity is living practically on top of itself.

How is anarchy a viable alternative to what we have? Without causing a significant backslide of progress, without a significant increase in violence, without a gradual breakdown in commerce and living standards, etc.? And I'm talking over significant time frames here with significant populations. Especially when considering that other geographical areas may be united under an authoritarian leadership, amassing military, weaponry and delusions of conquering the world?

Just tell me how!

[triplesix]

Quote:TBH most of the governing bodies we have, on the whole, don't do a bad job. Its an honor system, like most things out there. Thats generally where it all falls over.

This is my sentiment. I feel there needs to be better oversight, but then who oversees the overseers? Also limiting and sharing the powers helps, but it can only go so far. This is where the honor system comes in as you say. Assuming systems aren't constantly being exploited by systems-analyst type power mongers, governments already operating could be operating far better.

I don't see scrapping it all in favour of anarchy as at all a solution.

[nataraja]

you guys are an interesting bunch!

would be great to sit around and have a few beers with you all and talk about global issues etc

:D

carry on...

[Guest]

Quote:

Quote:in reality, given that all primates live within families (as far as i am aware without exception), i find it difficult to imagine how humanity could have lived otherwise. and, when one considers how vulnerable an individual human is, alone, against the forces of nature it seems ludicrous to imagine humanity in any other format apart from social groups.

one must also remember, in nature, physical violence (excepting for food, protection and procreation) is always the last option. remember, physical violence is very, very dangerous, to all protagonists, even the winner.

from this perspective, i would suggest, violence was not so common. in fact, until humanity had spread out across the planet, and overburdened its resources there would be little reason for violence at all.

so 666, do not fall for the lies the state and its education program attempt to force down the throats of its inhabitants, purely to validate its own existence.

Everything you state as evidence against a violent past to mankind points to me as evidence for it.

Look at fucking Ötzi the Iceman, dude. Ötzi has been established to have been alive around 3300 BC in the Neolithic era though his lifestyle was more similar to the Mesolithic peoples. He died at 45 years old, which was quite old for the time, showing evidence of a lifetime of abuse, not all of which could be attributed to normal wear and tear. Ötzi had healed fractured ribs and a healed broken nose. He died violently with a deep cut near his thumb down to the bone indicating a wound received while trying to deflect blows with his hands. He also got shot in the back with a fucking arrow and that's probably what killed him. On top of that, he had two arrows with blood on them from two other individuals, which he had retrieved after shooting them. On top of that, Ötzi's position when they found him indicated he had been rolled over onto his stomach so as to remove the arrow shaft. I'd say that's evidence he lived in some violent times.

Another example is peat bog corpses. These are more often than not clear murder cases, or at least examples of violent death. Throats being slit, heads bashed in. We're talking about a time where all you had to do was kill them when no one was around and who would ever be the wiser? Unless of course bad blood was known between the murder and victim but now we're just getting over-speculative.

First I'm provided the Wild West as an example of anarchy in action and then I'm to be persuaded it is less violent than established society to the East?

Of course the first police forces were paramilitary forces designed to mostly protect the interests of the patriarch but allow history to show us its follies. Having a general police force has greatly benefited mankind. Having a war on drugs and a suppression of political dissent is clearly the villain here. If police were trained properly, and not to be useful NWO thugs, they could be a significant source of comfort for most people.

I am sorry, but if any of you held any credibility for me before, you are shattering it with your delusions of an orderly and civil society before constitutions, civil liberties, and birth rights were established and protected under the law. Violence had been the way of life for most people before even the twentieth century and ever escalating violence as history is traced backwards.

Of course it was dangerous for any number of men to meet other men in battle, but it wouldn't be hard for ten to twenty thugs to jump some fool and kill his ass without running into any trouble whatsoever.

Of course before humanity enveloped the globe and began rubbing elbows with one another violence was minimal, but now humanity is living practically on top of itself.

How is anarchy a viable alternative to what we have? Without causing a significant backslide of progress, without a significant increase in violence, without a gradual breakdown in commerce and living standards, etc.? And I'm talking over significant time frames here with significant populations. Especially when considering that other geographical areas may be united under an authoritarian leadership, amassing military, weaponry and delusions of conquering the world?

Just tell me how!

you're really starting to sound like a dick now.no offence but you're just trying to milk it now. You seem to want to completely refuse to read anything about anarchistic social organisation and yet can't stop bringing on reactionary arguments against it ( as you see it anyhow)with flimsy grounding to say the least.
Oetzi the iceman??? ffs - why don'y you go and have a look at the real history of social organisation in say celtic parts of europe before the romans came with their police state. I think your find that equality and social provision in these communities societies far outstripped those of the "civilised" roman police state and its attendant "progress" not to mention a lot of science which is now attributed to rome...for instance.

here read this if you actually want to get a clue and ffs stop prattling on about how we would be raping and killing each other indiscriminantly if it weren't for the police. crikey. are you so very scared??

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/193...ml#secj515

it's like you just want to be the eternal devil's advocate - is that why your nik is so? That's fine but it would be eminently better if you had at least some background reading in the subject instead of citing oetzi the iceman as an indicator of the complete experience of humans in earlier times. jesus.

if you want/need the police to stop you from running round raping and killing - fine! you have them!
I used to live in a place where we had to look after ourselves from quite gnarly folk - eg. drug related - the police didnt help us because we were anarchists/hippies/freepartyheads/outside the grid etc whatever...in fact the police went further than not helping us they would sometimes arrest people with no good cause just cos they felt like it, beat people up too - but then less of that after many sued their asses - there's not an irony in that really in case you try and wrangle your synaptic pathways for the paradoxical humour..don't bother I already am steps ahead of you there.

are there hordes of mad max like villians waiting to prey apon you and yours with only your noble and vigilant police force protecting you from certain attack? get real - the police are largely corrupt power junky elitists. Not many people join the police soley to help there fellow citizens - oh wait -youre not a citizen after you join are you - if there are sheep, then they are the sheep dogs keeping you penned in for the shepherd who makes money selling your ass. get real and stop all this we need the police bs unless you can cite more cogent reasonings than oetzi the iceman :laughkick::LOL::slap: :sleep:

[triplesix]

Ugh, take a fucking chill pill. Before you respond to this post, take a look at the "culties" thread and consider what I posted there.

I'm not trying to be "a dick." I'm conveying my point of view.

Personally, you're the one constantly throwing false dichotomy fallacies at me every time I criticize the lack of a system for law and order.

Because I believe society needs three things: 1) a clear declaration of human rights, 2) a system of equitable law, and 3) a citizen police force; does not mean I believe in a paramilitary extension of the executive for which to undermine political opposition nor enforce pointless prohibition of entheogens!

While I say that I am concerned about the idea of justice in an anarchist society, you say I call for urban gestapo.

This is not what I am arguing. Would you have this same feeling about the police if they were limited in their ability to approach individuals not actively participating in crime? If their purpose was to prevent and investigate murder, rape, and theft primarily over anything else? Is it so bad to have trustworthy individuals from the community actively working to prevent these types of things from occurring? Fuck man, I don't even know. I'm just shooting the shit with you. Relax, please.

[Guest]

Quote:Ugh, take a fucking chill pill. Before you respond to this post, take a look at the "culties" thread and consider what I posted there.

I'm not trying to be "a dick." I'm conveying my point of view.

Personally, you're the one constantly throwing false dichotomy fallacies at me every time I criticize the lack of a system for law and order.

Because I believe society needs three things: 1) a clear declaration of human rights, 2) a system of equitable law, and 3) a citizen police force; does not mean I believe in a paramilitary extension of the executive for which to undermine political opposition nor enforce pointless prohibition of entheogens!

While I say that I am concerned about the idea of justice in an anarchist society, you say I call for urban gestapo.

This is not what I am arguing. Would you have this same feeling about the police if they were limited in their ability to approach individuals not actively participating in crime? If their purpose was to prevent and investigate murder, rape, and theft primarily over anything else? Is it so bad to have trustworthy individuals from the community actively working to prevent these types of things from occurring? Fuck man, I don't even know. I'm just shooting the shit with you. Relax, please.

LOL I am relaxed, it's just you that's imagining that i'm not. You already have the gestapo, they are just much more subtle. Ok look, we should define this word police - I am not suggesting there would be no body of protection in any given area..but i am suggesting that if people were not so detatched from sorting things out in their own communties, instead waiting quietly and impotently for the "boys in blue" to come sort it out, then perhaps it would be an entirely different picutre. try and think of nodes rather than hegemony.
you relax!! LOL

peace

edit) just out of interest what were my false dichotomy fallacies? - sounds intriguing
edit] Or perhaps better than nodes - try and think mycelia rather than singular root systems

for sure there would be rough times should the police vanish but that would to my mind be "in process to" rather than "absolute state"

[jack]

the is NO ideal form of Government

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:How did human beings live so respectfully for millions of years before there was a form of government?

I'm pretty sure they raped and murdered ambivalently... not "live so respectfully."

this is the standard Hobbsian, 'Enlightenment' thinking which holds no basis in fact but has become an excuse for states, or the leaders thereof to pursue their greedy, power hungry aims.

in reality, given that all primates live within families (as far as i am aware without exception), i find it difficult to imagine how humanity could have lived otherwise. and, when one considers how vulnerable an individual human is, alone, against the forces of nature it seems ludicrous to imagine humanity in any other format apart from social groups.

one must also remember, in nature, physical violence (excepting for food, protection and procreation) is always the last option. remember, physical violence is very, very dangerous, to all protagonists, even the winner.

from this perspective, i would suggest, violence was not so common. in fact, until humanity had spread out across the planet, and overburdened its resources there would be little reason for violence at all.

so 666, do not fall for the lies the state and its education program attempt to force down the throats of its inhabitants, purely to validate its own existence.

:clap:

[mothandrust]

Quote:

Quote:in reality, given that all primates live within families (as far as i am aware without exception), i find it difficult to imagine how humanity could have lived otherwise. and, when one considers how vulnerable an individual human is, alone, against the forces of nature it seems ludicrous to imagine humanity in any other format apart from social groups.

one must also remember, in nature, physical violence (excepting for food, protection and procreation) is always the last option. remember, physical violence is very, very dangerous, to all protagonists, even the winner.

from this perspective, i would suggest, violence was not so common. in fact, until humanity had spread out across the planet, and overburdened its resources there would be little reason for violence at all.

so 666, do not fall for the lies the state and its education program attempt to force down the throats of its inhabitants, purely to validate its own existence.

Everything you state as evidence against a violent past to mankind points to me as evidence for it.

Look at fucking Ötzi the Iceman, dude. Ötzi has been established to have been alive around 3300 BC in the Neolithic era though his lifestyle was more similar to the Mesolithic peoples. He died at 45 years old, which was quite old for the time, showing evidence of a lifetime of abuse, not all of which could be attributed to normal wear and tear. Ötzi had healed fractured ribs and a healed broken nose. He died violently with a deep cut near his thumb down to the bone indicating a wound received while trying to deflect blows with his hands. He also got shot in the back with a fucking arrow and that's probably what killed him. On top of that, he had two arrows with blood on them from two other individuals, which he had retrieved after shooting them. On top of that, Ötzi's position when they found him indicated he had been rolled over onto his stomach so as to remove the arrow shaft. I'd say that's evidence he lived in some violent times.

Another example is peat bog corpses. These are more often than not clear murder cases, or at least examples of violent death. Throats being slit, heads bashed in. We're talking about a time where all you had to do was kill them when no one was around and who would ever be the wiser? Unless of course bad blood was known between the murder and victim but now we're just getting over-speculative.

First I'm provided the Wild West as an example of anarchy in action and then I'm to be persuaded it is less violent than established society to the East?

Of course the first police forces were paramilitary forces designed to mostly protect the interests of the patriarch but allow history to show us its follies. Having a general police force has greatly benefited mankind. Having a war on drugs and a suppression of political dissent is clearly the villain here. If police were trained properly, and not to be useful NWO thugs, they could be a significant source of comfort for most people.

I am sorry, but if any of you held any credibility for me before, you are shattering it with your delusions of an orderly and civil society before constitutions, civil liberties, and birth rights were established and protected under the law. Violence had been the way of life for most people before even the twentieth century and ever escalating violence as history is traced backwards.

Of course it was dangerous for any number of men to meet other men in battle, but it wouldn't be hard for ten to twenty thugs to jump some fool and kill his ass without running into any trouble whatsoever.

Of course before humanity enveloped the globe and began rubbing elbows with one another violence was minimal, but now humanity is living practically on top of itself.

How is anarchy a viable alternative to what we have? Without causing a significant backslide of progress, without a significant increase in violence, without a gradual breakdown in commerce and living standards, etc.? And I'm talking over significant time frames here with significant populations. Especially when considering that other geographical areas may be united under an authoritarian leadership, amassing military, weaponry and delusions of conquering the world?

Just tell me how!

10/6 is me by the way - i use the ID from the work computer, just in case management stumbles across it.

i accept many of your points 666 and although anarchy is a seductive idea to me personally i fail to see how it would not fall prey to wicked, power hungry people in absolutely no time. (perhaps you'd like to check out the 'Anarchism in America' thread)

however, i think you are missing my original point. sure i know of the iceman and peat corpses and i am not denying ancient cultures were potentially brutal, and life fragile and vulnerable but in evolutionary terms all of this is very recent - way after humanity had spread across the globe and established culture and society - and the world, given their level of technical development, was in many areas at saturation level, or at least claimed as territory. the time i am referring to is way before this, even before Africa had been entirely populated, when the earth appeared to stretch for ever and the bounties of life appeared to know no bounds.

it is thought fire was harnessed about 200,000 years ago, again, in evolutionary terms, very recent but this no doubt aided humanity's expansion considerably, and would, in time, lead to the era which you are citing.

[jack]

Quote:10/6 is me by the way - i use the ID from the work computer, just in case management stumbles across it.

Well then, mothandrust aka 10/6, I have enjoyed reading your views again. :biggrin:

:beer: