hahah is someone on the moon a extraterrestrial, I suggest no rule, because that is what anarchy is about, no hierarchy, sure it takes work and everyone kind of has to do something, its still better than working menial jobs and going over the same old road getting more rugged each day... have you noticed how much human potential is lost?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If you can fix the flaw of human selfishness then anarchy works just fine.
Most all of us are simply slaves of those who hold power. Their job is to keep us appeased. If not our thoughts turn to revolution and rebellion.
well you could say that, but I'd say we are slave to ourselves, if you don't have needs and wants and wishes for someone else to fulfill, then how can anyone control you, I'm not really revolutionary or rebelious I just see bullshit and I want it out, in my mind the problem of connection is the biggest, since people can't really work together, we've kind of lost touch when everyone branched off to specialise, we kind of lost the common ground, now politics is a bunch of schoolkids trashing the playground.
Yes selfishness does contribute to human suffering and we are kind of responsible for what we have ourselves, still if that was a major flaw I'd be surprised, sure it's quite well spread with everyone looking out for their own self interest, I'm still not sure if that is good and evolutionary or stems from a flawed way of life that is no longer grounded.
could you brush past the post that @brentsanders has posted a bit below and tell me what you think, I was about to make a quote but I will leave it off for another time |
Most of us would agree that what @brentsanders outlines in the post you reference is the most desirable "form of governance". A state where freedom is constrained by responsibility and responsibility is afforded by freedom.
For such a state to exist (physically or mentally) a critical mass must be achieved AND sustained. By critical mass I mean that a sufficient number of individuals must commit to the ideal that it becomes self sustaining. Such states have been achieved in small communities but historically have failed to be sustained for a variety of reasons. If either the quality or quantity of "fuel" diminishes the critical mass is lost.
While there is always a risk from within the community of losing critical mass the greater risk is external. We might create the perfect state and be living in bliss until a larger, more powerful group decides we have resources they want. And owing to such selfishness history then repeats, again.
As thrashed in the comments of the referenced post the biggest issue is achieving critical mass on a global scale. If all 7+ billion of us were on board it seems there would be no problem. I don't see critical mass being achieved on THAT scale without external "help"! Maybe I'm lacking in vision for my fellow humans?
I agree I kind of stop at some point and I even thought today it would probably be easier to fix the current "boat" than to build a new one, but who knows, I'd like to trust the fellow humans, but we are also quite limited in out scope of sight, not to mention we like to spend time in our own little box of a world ...
You've read the whole thing before me I couldn't finish the whole comment section but the elaboration there does a great job to outline potential shortcomings, basically what you have given as a example was framed analogously by @rocking-dave
Yes there is that recurring theme in history, trust being broken, alliances backstabbed, whole nations swept under the rug of history
and human greed...