The problem of Capitalism

As in Somalia...? Sometimes. But other times not. And then the war starts.

All of human history proves that claim is nothing but silly, disingenuous tripe.

<yawn> What single person? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

You disagree that disputes could be adjudicated by judges? You would prefer the injured party would simply kill his assumed perpetrator?

 

What do you incorrectly imagine each of those millions of landowners would be?

Anarchy is the rule of a thousand tyrants.

 

Landowners

Cool bumper sticker, bro.

 

What if the disputing parties don't agree to using a judge, to the same judge, or to how the judge is selected? What if one party refuses to abide by the ruling?

 

Then killing happens, I suppose.

 

I'm not even a tiny bit surprised by this answer.

You know you could actually try walking the walk? But you won't because no one is paying you to do so, right? Where is the greed, after all?

 

you mean like in a ..... DEMOCRACY?

forget it, our pals don't want to know about that free choice stuff.

 

You start with the wrong premise, and you end with your assertion: "Anarchy.....is the natural order of human life".

The elected representatives in democracies can hardly be characterised as "an elite ruling class" ; more accurately they can be described as the "blind the blind".

Actually, if we had perfect education, capable of eradicating all prejudice and unreason, then we might be able to approach your Anarchy, in which all ideology-based conflict no longer existed, and most interaction could be managed by individual contract.

But I suspect we will need to achieve an international rules based system, long before Anarchy becomes the guiding principle for a sustainable, prosperous. well-ordered human civilisation on earth.

In the meantime, you have people like crank who thinks all are 100% free to make rational choices (denying the reality of the unconscious mind), and starjet who thinks reason is naturally (by dint of being human) accessible to all.

And you are in agreement with them.

 

Fred Trump jr. may have been a 'spoiled brat', and hence (according to you) unable to deal with his alcoholism; but most who do not successfully deal with it are certainly not "spoiled brats".

In fact in Australia (and no doubt elsewhere) there is a kind of genocide by alcoholism going on among the aboriginal people who are genetically unable to deal with alcohol. But of course in the absence of a JG, (which would enable aboriginal people to begin to break the cycle of poverty). and a disinclination to restrain profits in the alcohol industry, who fight tooth and nail against any restrictions, the nightmare continues .

Unconscious motivation plus environment (different for every individual) renders your touted "universal freedom to make rational choices" a gross simplification of reality.

Hence your entire world view is false, hopefully 'only' ignorant, IN WHICH CASE YOU CAN STILL LEARN, rather than malicious, out of greed and fear of universal, just, and sufficient access to vital resources

 

Are you still arguing for the initiation of violence against your neighbor?

 

Of course not, I'm arguing for universal, sustainable, sufficient access to vital resources.

eg UNUDHR article 25.

Which begs the question: what are you arguing for?

 

Do you mean "raises the question"?

I am opposed to the initiation of violence against my neighbor.

 

Ted says democracy is rule by an elite class, and needs to be replaced with 'Anarchy'; you say democracy is fine, regardless of the lack of expertise or knowledge amongst the peoples representatives.

Who is right?

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

 

You asked me: "are you still arguing for ........"

and I told you.

Apparently you are unable to say what you are arguing for, on this board.

 

I told you. I am arguing for societal prohibitions against the initiation of violence against my neighbor.

 

So you still want to use the gun and club against your neighbor?

 

So you agree with Ted...OK

So both have a hopelessly ignorant, simplistic conception of individuals' "freedom to make rational choices" and "ability to reason" regardess of individuals' prejudice.

 

Why should two people have the right to rule the third person?

 

Gosh, and I thought you were arguing for a mythical "free choice" by individuals but it seems you ARE NOW ARGUING for "societal PROHIBITIONS"...!

 

Did you think that? Weird.

I oppose your plan to use violence against your fellow man to accomplish your goals. Violence is never the answer.

 

You said: "I am arguing for societal prohibitions...."

Those words, and their meaning, are clear enough.... it's a mistake you made because of your false beliefs that all are 100% free to make rational choices, and all are able to reason regardless of prejudice.

 

I don't support truncheons and guns to dominate my fellow man, unlike yourself

 

"Unconscious motivation" will not absolve you in a court of law. Nor will it command the pity of those who had even greater hurdles, but were motivated enough to overcome them. You are demanding that we support people who quite literally 'can't be bothered', while people who can very much be bothered (but lack the incredible opportunities of the First World) are starving. I'll ask again .. where is the actual greed?

My worldview is that it's on us to be the change we hope for. I started decades ago by living according to that creed, and have sacrificed privacy, riches, travel, and luxury to do so. What have you done besides talk?