12 Nov 06
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
do modern multinational companies employ violence in any form and if so how, if not then why is it necessary for a state and not necessary for a multinational; some multinational have greater worth and more influence than small violence employing states.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutIt is impossible to keep everyone from being violent. There are some violent people; it's built into our genes.
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
do modern multinational companies employ violence in any form and if so how, if not then why is it necessary for a state and not necessary for a multinatio ...[text shortened]... ; some multinational have greater worth and more influence than small violence employing states.
To protect people from such violent people, violence must be used. Multinational corporations don't need to use violence because states do. If there were no nations using violence to keep the peace the corporations would use violence in their own names to protect their interests.
12 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungso you are arguing that violence is a trait that has been selected though evolution.
It is impossible to keep everyone from being violent. There are some violent people; it's built into our genes.
many evolved animal species are not violent and still manage to exist in abundance.
so it is theoretically possible too, to have a human species that is also non violent.
and hence a human orginasation and community that is non violence based.
12 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungVery true. But violence would pervade in every facet of our society, not just commerce.
It is impossible to keep everyone from being violent. There are some violent people; it's built into our genes.
To protect people from such violent people, violence must be used. Multinational corporations don't need to use violence because states do. If there were no nations using violence to keep the peace the corporations would use violence in their own names to protect their interests.
Just imagine the violence that would be further perpetrated in the name of religion.
Check the level of violence in our education systems.
Sport would have to be played for TV only, as fans would make it a bloodbath.
And its a sad fact that states have to use violence to controll us proletarian scum, the citizens, or else it would be anarchy and chaos in our streets. Every urban block would be controlled by its heirachy and subject to its own laws as interpreted by some psycho with enough power to wield over the weak, the unwary and un-armed.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutso you are arguing that violence is a trait that has been selected though evolution.
so you are arguing that violence is a trait that has been selected though evolution.
many evolved animal species are not violent and still manage to exist in abundance.
so it is theoretically possible too, to have a human species that is also non violent.
and hence a human orginasation and community that is non violence based.
I did not say that, but I think it is true. What I said was that humans are genetically capable of violence and that it will occur.
many evolved animal species are not violent and still manage to exist in abundance.
Examples? Butterflies, maybe.
In any case, we are not those animals. I did not say we needed to be violent to survive; I said that we are violent. Nobody is going to change the genetics of the human race to eliminate any tendency towards violence; at least not in the foreseeable future. People wouldn't allow it. What's your point?
12 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungmy point is that the current socio-political-country system is a hang over from the caveman days and that with modern information and technology different systems are now possible. and that such avenues should be explored. i also believe that violence is a learned trait that emphases a preexisting fault. education and conditioning in a different direction is possible.
[b]so you are arguing that violence is a trait that has been selected though evolution.
I did not say that, but I think it is true. What I said was that humans are genetically capable of violence and that it will occur.
many evolved animal species are not violent and still manage to exist in abundance.
Examples? Butterflies, maybe. ...[text shortened]... violence; at least not in the foreseeable future. People wouldn't allow it. What's your point?[/b]
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by lordhighgusstrange it is indeed that so called democratic societies elect a government that oppresses them and that these societies see this as a necessary precondition for good governance. where as individuals in these democratic societies would not admit to voluntarily working for a company employing the same tactics.
And its a sad fact that states have to use violence to controll us proletarian scum, the citizens, or else it would be anarchy and chaos in our streets.
12 Nov 06
examples: whales dolphins deer zebra etc, many insect and bird species
I said that we are violent. Nobody is going to change the genetics of the human race to eliminate any tendency towards violence;
we are not all violent either habitually or frequently. and behavior change can be produced though means other than genetic modification eg. selective food intake and if necessary certain legal drugs (and illegal drugs and in extreme cases lobotomies although i am not an advocate of that.)
people wouldn't allow it violent people wouldn't allow it because violence is a hobby for some, and the current system allows (preselects) those with a preponderance/ascendancy for violence to obtain influential positions.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutAll whales are carnivores, as are dolphins. Thus they are violent. Male deer and zebras are quite violent. For example:
examples: whales dolphins deer zebra etc, many insect and bird species
[b]I said that we are violent. Nobody is going to change the genetics of the human race to eliminate any tendency towards violence;
we are not all violent either habitually or frequently. and behavior change can be produced though means other than genetic modification eg. select ...[text shortened]... reselects) those with a preponderance/ascendancy for violence to obtain influential positions.[/b]
To found a harem, young stallion must abduct a filly from her family herd, therefore fillies are fiercely competed for once they reach sexual maturity. When they are between one and two years old, a filly will exhibit the specific estrus posture, thus inviting male attention. However, she will refuse any attempts at mating and hides in her family group, which tries to protect her (Estes 1991). Nearby stallions will try to kidnap her, while her father stallion tries to fight them off. He will attack one stallion and chase it away, only to come back and have to do it over and over again. These encounters may occasionally escalate into fights.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2004/delk/Mating.htm
http://www.deer-uk.com/bphipps5l.jpg
12 Nov 06
2 edits
we are not all violent either habitually or frequently.
But some of us are. It's a statistical thing.
and behavior change can be produced though means other than genetic modification eg. selective food intake and if necessary certain legal drugs (and ...[text shortened]... at.)
Good luck forcing people to let you do these things to them without you using violence!
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutNo, yes, greed/ power/ powerlessness/ hatred/ inadequacy/ stupidity, No.
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
do modern multinational companies employ violence in any form and if so how, if not then why is it necessary for a state and not necessary for a multinatio ...[text shortened]... ; some multinational have greater worth and more influence than small violence employing states.
Don't know what you are on about with regards to multinationals.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by mancityboywhat I am saying with regards to multinationals is that they get things acheived through means other than indimidation and fear. while similtaneously giving their employee and their customers some satisfaction.
No, yes, greed/ power/ powerlessness/ hatred/ inadequacy/ stupidity, No.
Don't know what you are on about with regards to multinationals.
so, the multinationals have a functioning organisation that delivers results through non violent means.
what I am saying is, is it possible to acheive and deliver the functions of a state through the methods of a multinational or through the methods of any other functioning organisation that does not need to use violence, fear and intimidation as it modus operandi
and if this is possible why isnt it happening
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthere are other means of persuasion besides "forcing people".
[b]we are not all violent either habitually or frequently.
But some of us are. It's a statistical thing.
and behavior change can be produced though means other than genetic modification eg. selective food intake and if necessary certain legal drugs (and at.)
Good luck forcing people to let you do these things to them without you using violence![/b]
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutHow would contracts be enforced without force? Sweet talk?
what I am saying with regards to multinationals is that they get things acheived through means other than indimidation and fear. while similtaneously giving their employee and their customers some satisfaction.
so, the multinationals have a functioning organisation that delivers results through non violent means.
what I am saying is, is it possible to ac ...[text shortened]... nce, fear and intimidation as it modus operandi
and if this is possible why isnt it happening
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by Palynkai am not a CEO of a functioning organization and am far removed from their operating environment so I am unable to answer you, however I can see that they deliver. so put this question to someone in the hierarchy and i am sure they have answers for you.
How would contracts be enforced without force? Sweet talk?