Prisoner37 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 4:58 pm
I'm guessing that anarchy is the model that would present you with freedom from both? I do think Noam Chomsky makes an excellent argument for this, but unfortunately expecting enough human beings to not be motivated by greed or power is like expecting stags not to rut.
Chomsky's argument that all authority should be required to demonstrate its legitimacy makes a lot of sense.
The power and greed argument, ie capitalism cannot be challenged because it somehow represents 'human nature', or the 'natural order', doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you realise that humans have organised themselves in a myriad of ways over thousands of years, and most of those haven't involved anything resembling either states or markets as we currently recognise them.
Jaydog wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 2:17 pm
Really? How on earth are they connected?
If you look at politics on a basic level I simply can’t vote for people who are multi millionaires. It’s a conflict of interests. I used to vote Green Party but don’t bother any more.
No idea but got the form the other day and it said failure to register would affect my credit rating.
"Never debate an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level and they have the advantage of experience"
Sara wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:32 pm
Chomsky's argument that all authority should be required to demonstrate its legitimacy makes a lot of sense.
The power and greed argument, ie capitalism cannot be challenged because it somehow represents 'human nature', or the 'natural order', doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you realise that humans have organised themselves in a myriad of ways over thousands of years, and most of those haven't involved anything resembling either states or markets as we currently recognise them.
Yes, human societies have organised themselves in different way over the millennia but there have always been troops, clans and tribes and usually some system of barter. Unfortunately our 'natural order' is demonstrated by the propensity for our species to go to war. This is evidenced right through our history and pre-history. Even our nearest living relatives, the chimpanzee, regularly go to war
We have probably gone a little off-piste from the 'playful' St.George's flag, that couldn't slay the Brazilian dragon on it's first outing. Although it was nice to see the handsome Raphinha in action again.
Prisoner37 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:17 am
Unfortunately our 'natural order' is demonstrated by the propensity for our species to go to war. This is evidenced right through our history and pre-history.
It really isn't... what you're saying doesn't align with the archaeological or anthropological evidence, it's just an ideology projected back onto the past from our current viewpoint. Have a look at Graeber and Wengrow's book, if you're interested:
Sara wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:55 am
It really isn't... what you're saying doesn't align with the archaeological or anthropological evidence, it's just an ideology projected back onto the past from our current viewpoint. Have a look at Graeber and Wengrow's book, if you're interested:
I will have a look Sara - thank you. You may also want to have a look at Lawrence H. Keeley's book; War Before Civilization, in which he counters Rousseau's concept of the 'noble savage' and how anthropologists and archaeologists have skated over or ignored evidence of our brutal pre-history for their own idealised projections : ) I also found Harvard University's anthropology lectures, available on YouTube, informative on this topic.
The two main points that have got me to my current standpoint on this, is the footage of chimpanzees going to war and that Native North American didn't conceive of the war party just when the Europeans arrived.
Prisoner37 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:02 pm
The two main points that have got me to my current standpoint on this, is the footage of chimpanzees going to war and that Native North American didn't conceive of the war party just when the Europeans arrived.
Human beings are not chimpanzees. One of the main findings of the book is that humans have always had the capacity to choose how to organise themselves; that's what differentiates us, we are not bound by inexorable evolutionary drives.
The accounts of the French exchanges with Native Americans when they arrived to colonise in the 17th century are an eye opener... worth the book's price of admission alone.
