@DarkwolfX37- So you start out completely incorrect. In my original comment, I specifically stated "Holds no restrictions on the formation of new forms of government within it, allowing for a workable society to form as necessary" as one of the benefits. How you can claim that I somehow believe that anarchy will remain such is beyond my understanding. You're trying to make a non-point. Like I said, trying to argue against anarchy because governments will form is not a point against anarchy, it is a condemnation of anything and everything else.
Well the very fact that anarchy will not stay is a part of the issue with anarchy. No matter if outside factors are responsible for it not staying for long, it still remains as an issue of compatibility between the system and humanity. Isn't that a problem on it's own? The system just doesn't go with humanity.
- No, it's not. That's a common misconception. The strongest aren't the ones in power, the most adaptable are. The way of nature is adaptation, not strength. Film Theory did a wonderful job explaining why your assumption is incorrect, though taking it to a massive extreme due to the context, so I'll leave it to that instead of trying to say it in a less effective way. The kind of people who would want to be tyrants are the type of people who cannot survive, let alone thrive and gain power, without social systems to manipulate. The people who have that sort of predisposition need a foothold that simply doesn't exist in anarchy in order to get power.
Well that theory makes a fair point but that is if you look at psychopaths and sociopaths as unable to pretend to care and form "relationships" then you are gravely mistaken. Lets say that because of an outside factor anarchy is stable and humans don't try to establish governments. During the first years, almost any big groups of people will be led by a sociopath/psychopath as also seen in the show. Now the point that is made in the theory is that those groups don't stick for long because the sociopath/psychopath can't connect with the group. Only using fear tactics and the sort to oppress people and keep them in check is bad in the long run. But couldn't they as well pretend to care? Couldn't they be more kind and form a connection with those that they keep close? The armed personnel? You can oppress the common people and the villagers and terrorize them while form a "connection" with your armed forces.
- That's also incorrect. The only differences between us and the next placers, wolves, bears, and apes, are our limb structure, communication systems, and lack of object-oriented thought processes. There are birds that can use smartphones, primates that can communicate through sign language, wolves have built a more stable and peaceful social structure than we have, and bears are able to quickly devise survival mechanisms for completely foreign environments. We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place. We're lucky, not better.
Yeah and the difference between the rain and the skydivers is that rain is made entirely out of water and has a small mass. They are not better than the rain, they are just lucky to not be made entirely out of water. I mean, both skydivers and rain falls from the sky right?(Don't go into a lecture to specify from where the rain falls) Yeah, all animals excel at something that has helped them survive that long so what? Birds can fly and we can not, rhino beetles can carry many times their weight and we can not, hell even ants can carry many times their weight and we can't and your point is?
"It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place."Yeah, a few "simple" but BIG changes, forgot to add that there. In that sense anything can become anything with some changes.
We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. What? No, we
are superior. Firstly, we can eradicate every living creature on earth and they can do nothing about it. Now if that is not a form of superiority then what is?
You also seem to have this idea that we are somehow above our genes. Everything we do, this very conversation, is dictated by how our genes have made us respond to the stimuli we have experienced and random chance. And while guided genetic alteration would be preferable to the natural genetic drift, it does not solve the problems of our species. I didn't mention natural selection only in reference to genetics; the effect that the loss of our current systems would have and the effect that a daily fight for survival would have is the more beneficial factor. It's because we no longer are affected by natural selection that we have gotten to the point where we have thoroughly corrupted every social system that has been created to date. That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future.
I didn't say that we are above our genes, I meant that we are intellectually developed enough to understand them and with time, hopefully, change them. Being above our genes is being above ourselves? By controlling our genes we can control and shape ourselves. Now this will be possible in the future if humanity survives long enough.
"
but it is harmful to the species and its future" You don't know that, you can't see the future. You can predict based on how things are going to where the race is headed but you can't definitively say that it is harmful for the future of humanity.
- Exactly. The philosophical "circle of hatred" is the point. Either there will be people who can end that chain, therefor better than those before them, or those groups will wipe each other out and lackluster people will be removed from the whole. This is a benefit, not a problem. To point to a wonderful example in fiction, the Uchihas in Naruto fit. The only way the group survived at all is that there were three who became better than the others. If they had all continued to be violent and self-destructive, then they would have died out and with them would die the conflict and poisonous factors that made them the way they were. It's very much an issue of adapt or die, simply on a scale of multiple organisms.
Yeah but how many did the Uchihas kill during the war and after before the clan died leaving only one behind? I can't say that those who they killed were innocent but they could as well be in anarchy. How many should die fighting these murderess who have no place in anarchy before they finally die out? Yes, it is for the greater good that some people should lay their lives fighting but what about the individual itself? Is it fair to him? You might still say that his life is inconsequential for the betterment of humanity as a whole but what if it was you who was that individual? Would you lay your life knowing that you would be doing humanity a favor while fighting?
- Why should it matter what the current generation thinks? Like you said, it doesn't care about the future generations. That is a factor that should be removed, and would be affected by the return of natural selection. When humans once again have to risk their own lives for the sake of their offspring, rather than simply invest time if even that in them, care for coming generations will increase. I see no reason why the current generation should receive special treatment over any other.
There I was taking into consideration both the effects of anarchy to humanity and to the individual itself. But as you stated above
"That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future."- The purpose of showing that it does not exist is to show that it is an unnecessary and in fact harmful factor in transactions. What dictates how much of a currency something is worth? The same thing that dictates what object would be comparative for it. Simply take the fact that multiple currencies exist in mind. The "value" of a currency changes constantly. A bottle of water costs more now than twenty years ago, but the subjective value that someone would place on that bottle of water has not changed. The same person in the same situation would value it the same regardless of what monetary value others placed on it. The problem with currency is that it has neither value nor use. Trading in rocks would be an improvement, because at least rocks can be used. There is a placeholder for value on it. If tomorrow the world's currency finally crashed, the fact that it is imaginary would no longer be some vague thing to not worry about. The more currency you had, the higher your loss would be when the species realized that it has no use and therefor no reason to assign their subjective worths to it. If you and I both had ten gallons of drinkable water, and you sold yours for 1000 dollars via check, and I sold mine for 1000 dollars in cash, we would be losing something with use for something without use, in my case, and for something that flat out doesn't exist in your case. This is why "the gold standard" is wrong, because the only use gold has is in relatively advanced technology, which the average person cannot use it for. Trade boils down to the subjective value of survival necessities: food, drink, shelter materials, and time. Currency removes that subjective value and replaces it with an unenforceable assumption that you have something of equal subjective value. It is simply a hope, and hope has no subjective value. This is a roundabout way of saying it, but the short of it is simply that using currency makes everything valueless, rather than keeping everything valued at what it can do for an individual
Nothing to enforce the value you say? Well let's say that currency is the same all around the world and everything has the same price based on which product would logically cost more, which is more essential to humanity. Isn't currency better, as I have established in my previous sentence, then simple trading of items? Anarchy will never stay anyway, we are already assuming what if it would* stay so why can't we assume that everyone in the world would use the same currency with fair transaction rates to buy items? It is more efficient that way isn't it? Using currency in the scenario that I described.
- How do you think that society formed? Do you believe that humans grew to use and further develop tools without the greatest local minds working together for a common interest? Mutual survival is what drives advancement the fastest, not economic development nor the simple pursuit of knowledge, however much we may wish otherwise.
Yeah but how long did that take? How long did that technological advancement take compared to how much we have advanced this past decade alone? Do you really believe that we would advance at the same right we are advancing now in the technological department?
This is my key problem with anarchy.- Just like any other species, humans should not be simply allowed to go extinct. That is why I advocate returning natural selection. It is the best chance at long term survival for the species. To poison the body to kill the cancer and allow the damaged body to slowly recover. Even if the majority will die out, the majority are horrible regardless. The good will die out too, but those to come later will have a higher chance of being good, and this will only expound. If it fails to do so, then humanity will die out as a whole, but at least then it wouldn't be taking out all the rest of the species on the planet with it, and at least it would have a chance rather than simply suffocating itself out of its own stupidity.
That's your personal opinion and an abstract thought that doesn't matter. Humanity can die 100 times over as long as anyone not human(evens some humans) cares and it wouldn't make any difference to anything outside of planet earth. I mean logically, why should humanity live at all? You are using logic as a tool to present your idea of a solution to something you wish, that is anarchy for humanity or even for humanity to survive. But that all changes depending on what a person wishes. Isn't self gratification also a wish and do not most, if not all people, try to achieve it?
Logically fueled by your desires for how humanity should live, it still isn't the best logical option based on one fact, you don't know the future, you can't do the simulation. You might predict that it holds the highest possibility for humanity to survive longer and evolve but you don't know that will definitely happen. In 500 years time we could have sufficient technology to colonize some of the planets of the solar system. This only made possible by the raid technological developments that wouldn't be possible if there was anarchy.
