Originally posted by widgetThe empathy but makes it sound like Eichmann wasn't touchy feely enough.
Perhaps it's too complex a concept for this Forum 🙄 "People in large numbers" are comprised of what? 😲
No trial provides a better basis for understanding the nature and causes of evil than do the Nuremberg trials from 1945 to 1949. Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed. [b]What is shocking about ...[text shortened]... couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.[/b]
I have less empathy than almost everyone I know and I would be last person to take part in something like that. I tend to be principled which in truth I would guess makes me more likely to do something disgusting for something I believe in.
I would guess that I would be a high risk personality type. So... Maybe this IS something I should be interested in!
And the large numbers thing is probably to general a statement. I suspect if we asked the German people on an individual basis before WWII if they thought that all Jews should be killed the majority would have said no. For some reason, the German people did not stick to their personal beleifs and make their individual beliefs a clear collective ideal. That's what I meant about large groups. People seem to be dumber as a collective than they are as individuals. Was it fear that kept their mouths shut or a simple case of follow the leader? I would have to guess C, all of the above.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkI see no reason there can't be laws in an anarchy.
I would agree with that. The world had that already. We didn't always have laws, yet social networks formed, probably out of a need for survival, then evolved to what we have today.
Not to say that it couldn't work. I just think we get back to where we are today. If history is any indicator that is.
Addition: Though I realise that the very word means lawlessness. Is
there a word for a society where people don't live under a government, yet
follow laws that are meant to make the society run smoothly?
Originally posted by widgetYes, I know. They were rhetorical, as far as I'm concerned.
Did you know that you didn't answer either of the two questions that I asked? 😛 So ~ [b]Nada???
Yes, I agree, making assessments is difficult without exposing yourself 😞 What's wrong with yoga? 😕[/b]
Nothing wrong with yoga, it's about the usual esoteric brainwashing that goes with it.
Originally posted by stockenSort of like a collective of laws or something? I think I see what you're saying. I have to wonder how it would work though. I mean, what happens when people don't follow these laws? If the people of the anarchal society accept these laws how do they enforce them? Probably can't I should think. They could just give a bad offenders the bounce. Maybe that would be possible. If there is an enforcement mechanism its no longer anarchy, its just a different kind of government.
I see no reason there can't be laws in an anarchy.
[b]Addition: Though I realise that the very word means lawlessness. Is
there a word for a society where people don't live under a government, yet
follow laws that are meant to make the society run smoothly?[/b]
Originally posted by stockenDo you mean rules?
I see no reason there can't be laws in an anarchy.
[b]Addition: Though I realise that the very word means lawlessness. Is
there a word for a society where people don't live under a government, yet
follow laws that are meant to make the society run smoothly?[/b]
Originally posted by MerkPalynka corrected me. I meant rules. And the rules are made by the people
Sort of like a collective of laws or something? I think I see what you're saying. I have to wonder how it would work though. I mean, what happens when people don't follow these laws? If the people of the anarchal society accept these laws how do they enforce them? Probably can't I should think. They could just give a bad offenders the bounce. Maybe that would b ...[text shortened]... e is an enforcement mechanism its no longer anarchy, its just a different kind of government.
living in that "anarchy". I can see but one problem, and that's the protection
of minorities.
Frankly, I don't really believe it would work in practice, but theoretically it's
not impossible. Or what do you think?
Originally posted by stockenIn an incomplete theory, Anarchy is the pinnacle of all ideas for a free Society. That theory is incomplete because doesn't take into account that anarchy is not what man wants by nature. Anarchy is what man started with and quickly did away with. In application it won't stay anarchy. Perhaps with the right people it might work.
Palynka corrected me. I meant rules. And the rules are made by the people
living in that "anarchy". I can see but one problem, and that's the protection
of minorities.
Frankly, I don't really believe it would work in practice, but theoretically it's
not impossible. Or what do you think?
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenConjecture #1: A system that depends on the goodwill of all its members will be dominated by a least scrupulous one.
Palynka corrected me. I meant rules. And the rules are made by the people
living in that "anarchy". I can see but one problem, and that's the protection
of minorities.
Frankly, I don't really believe it would work in practice, but theoretically it's
not impossible. Or what do you think?
Conjecture #2: A system that depends on the goodwill of its rulers will be ruled by some of its least scrupulous members.
Originally posted by stockenSensible people don't need rules......which is why we have so many of them.
Palynka corrected me. I meant rules. And the rules are made by the people
living in that "anarchy". I can see but one problem, and that's the protection
of minorities.
Frankly, I don't really believe it would work in practice, but theoretically it's
not impossible. Or what do you think?
Anarchy would work God hadn't fricked up the ol Gene pool.
Originally posted by MerkB) ...a simple case of follow the leader 😀 And that's what Jaynes' book tries to explain. 🙄
So... Maybe this IS something I should be interested in! ...for some reason, the German people did not stick to their personal beleifs and make their individual beliefs a clear collective ideal. That's what I meant about large groups. People seem to be dumber as a collective than they are as individuals. Was it fear that kept their mouths shut or a simple case of follow the leader? I would have to guess C, all of the above.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThey were not rhetorical questions 😛 Just wondered if you could put your money where your mouth was.
Yes, I know. They were rhetorical, as far as I'm concerned. ..
Apparently not? 😲 Why does this surprise me so? 🙄 Everything's screwed-up, so you don't even have to try to fix it? 😕 It is such a facile and familar cop-out.
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem 😉 Problem? What problem?
Originally posted by widgetDon't pretend to know anything about me. Because you don't.
They were not rhetorical questions 😛 Just wondered if you could your money where your mouth was...
Apparently not? 😲 Why does this surprise me so? 🙄 Everything's screwed-up, so you don't even have to try to fix it? 😕 It is such a facile and familar cop-out.
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem 😉 Problem? What problem?