30 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not trying to undermine anything that you've been saying.
There are a lot of non sequiturs in this post. Perhaps you'd actually look at what I said rather than come up with the Strawmen you have.
I'm just interested in what you believe is the fundamental reason why so much elitism and inequality exist in the world? How did humanity go from being communal people who deeply cared about one another and become so badly afflicted with the diseases of elitism and oppression?
And what do you believe would be the most effective way of curing these diseases?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesHere's some interesting background reading: http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm
I'm not trying to undermine anything that you've been saying.
I'm just interested in what you believe is the fundamental reason why so much elitism and inequality exist in the world? How did humanity go from being communal people who deeply cared about one another and become so badly afflicted with the diseases of elitism and oppression?
And what do you believe would be the most effective way of curing these diseases?
I have to leave; I'll address the article's points when I get back online.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockBecause Locke wasn't around the witness all the events that have taken place over the last couple of centuries since the time of the American and French Revolutions
In that case why ask no1 about it? 😕
[quote]What is your position on this -- do you believe government should be more hands-off libertarian, or should be it more hands-on ...[text shortened]... the first place. My ideal society would be something along the lines described by Bookchin...
I don't think we should have a government in the first place. My ideal society would be something along the lines described by Bookchin
So you'd basically break up every country into millions of small independent municipalities?
Actually, that's kind of the way it already works here in New Jersey 😀
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauder...
Yeah, that article really helps your "argument":
Of the many cave paintings from the Upper Paleolithic, none depict people attacking other people. There is no known archaeological evidence of large scale fighting until well into the Aurignacian.[
Beginning around 12,000 BC, during the late Upper Paleolithic period, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. The bow seems to have been the most important weapon in the development of early warfare, in that it enabled attacks to be launched with far less risk to the attacker when compared to the risk involved in the use of mêlée combat weaponry. While there are no cave paintings of battles between men armed with clubs, the development of the bow is concurrent with the first known depictions of organized warfare consisting of clear illustrations of two or more groups of men attacking each other. These figures are arrayed in lines and columns with a distinctly garbed leader at the front. Some paintings even portray still-recognizable tactics like flankings and envelopments.[6]
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
...
Drawings of humans were rare and are usually schematic rather than the more naturalistic animal subjects.
...
30 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSeems that during the medieval period, every couple of centuries saw the emergence of a wave of new religious orders whose members voluntary rejected the comforts of "civilization" in favor of the primitive life promoted by Jesus. The order founded by Francis of Assisi was one of the most famous, but there were many others like him - and there have been many such movements outside of the Christian realm as well.
Here's some interesting background reading: http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm
I have to leave; I'll address the article's points when I get back online.
So do you believe it's time for a new monastic movement to sweep across the world? -- where people are called upon to make a vow of poverty and join a commune where everyone lives and preaches a simple life that rejects materialism in favor of spiritual values.
It's kind of funny, but despite coming from very different places, you, Adam Warlock, Whodey, and Wajoma all seem to have outlooks that end up in this same place. And maybe all of you are onto something. I can see a great anti-technology backlash eventually emerging. Perhaps the 21st century is going to be filled with all sorts interesting creative primitivist movements that will greatly challenge the assumptions we currently hold.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou refuse to engage in a serious discussion. So be it.
Seems that during the medieval period, every couple of centuries saw the emergence of a wave of new religious orders whose members voluntary rejected the comforts of "civilization" in favor of the primitive life promoted by Jesus. The order founded by Francis of Assisi was one of the most famous, but there were many others like him - and there have been m ...[text shortened]... reative primitivist movements that will greatly challenge the assumptions we currently hold.
30 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI was making a very serious point based on the article that you posted.
You refuse to engage in a serious discussion. So be it.
Why shouldn't there be a new wave of primitivist movements that challenge the core assumptions of modern civilization? Why do so many people in first world, civilized nations feel so miserable despite having so many material things? Why are those primitive people so content (or at least no more unhappy) with a life that any of us would consider intolerable?
Why shouldn't there be an effort to challenge everyone to ask what creature comforts that could do without? So instead of envying our neighbor's bigger house, we can instead ask why do I need to live in a house? Maybe we can't all live up to the primitive ideal -- as the article stated, most of us are hopelessly domesticated -- but shouldn't we at least be seeing how far we can go with this?
30 Jun 10
I see this thread has gone in all sorts of directions since this morning, but let me ask you this, No1:
1) I think we can all agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental right; correct?
2) The Supreme Court has rules, as we all know, that flag burning to make a political statement is protected by freedom of expression.
3) We all know that there has been a movement, albeit unsuccessful, to ban flag burning by Constitutional amendment.
So, let's fast forward 5 years in sh76-world. In 2015, the 38th state ratifies the 28th Amendment to the US constitution, which states:
"No provision in this Constitution or any Amendment hereto shall be construed to prevent the United States or any state from prohibiting or criminalizing the burning or desecrating of the flag of the United States."
The next day, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia all pass laws making it a Class A misdemeanor to intentionally burn or desecrate the flag of the United States in public.
Now, should the federal courts strike down this law? If so, on what grounds?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesMe and no1 I think so, but certainly not with Whodey and Wajoma. They're for unbridled capitalism as far as I understand them and nothing could be farther from what I understand and defend.
It's kind of funny, but despite coming from very different places, you, Adam Warlock, Whodey, and Wajoma all seem to have outlooks that end up in this same place.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by Melanerpeshttp://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/BookchinCW.htmlI don't think we should have a government in the first place. My ideal society would be something along the lines described by Bookchin
So you'd basically break up every country into millions of small independent municipalities?
Actually, that's kind of the way it already works here in New Jersey 😀
30 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockAs I said, you don't all start from the same place - but you all have great deal of skepticism about The State and want to see a world in which government was much smaller.
Me and no1 I think so, but certainly not with Whodey and Wajoma. They're for unbridled capitalism as far as I understand them and nothing could be farther from what I understand and defend.
You all may have very different views about how people would behave and work out their economic and social conflicts in the face of a relatively State-free existence -- but it appears you all agree that the State is one of the main things at the root of mankind's problems.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't think I believe that.
but it appears you all agree that the State one of the main things at the root of mankind's problems.
I think that any form of coercion, any form of stratification, any form of hierarchy, any form of control, any form of power has to justify itself. The onus of the proof isn't in the oppressed, the onus of the proof is always in the oppressors.
I even think that sometimes a state is justified, but in the end it should do its best to wither away.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by sh76I don't think you can make it part of the Constitution that you cannot amend something in the future.
I see this thread has gone in all sorts of directions since this morning, but let me ask you this, No1:
1) I think we can all agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental right; correct?
2) The Supreme Court has rules, as we all know, that flag burning to make a political statement is protected by freedom of expression.
3) We all know that there h ...[text shortened]... es in public.
Now, should the federal courts strike down this law? If so, on what grounds?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou could draw a neat enough line to show a common ancestry in heterodox protestant settlers in the US, for example, and trace that back to the Reformation. Had you noticed the sublimated religious zeal..?
As I said, you don't all start from the same place - but you all have great deal of skepticism about The State and want to see a world in which government was much smaller.
You all may have very different views about how people would behave and work out their economic and social conflicts in the face of a relatively State-free existence -- but it appears you all agree that the State is one of the main things at the root of mankind's problems.