When I said "humanistic naturalism" I was not referring to the type of extremist humanistic naturalism that shuns technology and industry. Such things are inherently natural, or rather stem from natural causes, seeing as how the term supernatural does not apply to any debate dealing with scientific or rational topics.
Ok, my bad then. That was the only version of Humanistic naturalism I knew of.
Notice how I said that Somalia in particular was a poor example due to outside influences that basically shaped the country into what it is now. You're shunning an entire system of living after looking at just a snapshot in time. Which is akin to shunning capitalism based on the fact that economic upheavals happen.
I'm shunning an entire system of living because it has never occurred in human nature. The world is already politically shaped. My arguments are not out of "what is philosophically the best" but what is practical.
Also, in terms of "violence" and "massacres", nothing humans do to each other is brand new to nature. Animals have done it and will always do it. The taboo surrounding comparing humans to animals is self-righteous and needs to stop, seeing as how we all are animals.
I'm aware humans are animals. We're also the most successful animals to have ever existed, and we act different from most animals. Morality is a good example of that. Just because we're animals in no way invalidates morality. A lot of social animals protect the weak and hurt, and they don't kill each other. Some will attack others to defend their territory, but they rarely kill each other, only those of different species.
So I'm not going to baby you, and tell you everything's going to be alright. Naturalism is cruel, although cruel is a description unfairly foisted upon it by human emotions and sensibilities. We shouldn't hold back from the reality of something just because it makes us uncomfortable. If we did, I contend that most of us would still be religious.
Naturalism is cruel because of human emotions. Emotions that we
evolved to have in order to help us advance.
In my personal opinion, I'd rather have the ability (and knowledge) to take what I wanted forcefully than just the illusion of power. Do you really believe your voice matters when it comes to the modern political system?
I'm one person in a political system of over 300 million.
Why should my voice for some reason matter more then anyone elses? No, unless I get elected or work in some lobbyist group (last one is which I plan to do), then I'd do very little. That's good. It works best that way.
What I'm advocating is a realization that in the natural world, there is no such thing as rights. Consequently, there are no such thing as morals, so any beef you have with the civility or morality of such a system are off the mark; pure anarchy has no comment on these.
Morals come out of human emotions that we have at birth through evolution.
Naturally that is who we are.
The goal of nature is to survive. This means through any means possible. In this type of a system, my morals would be cosmologically different than yours, and they are the same only in the fact that we are both looking out for ourselves.[/COLOR]
Nature has no goals, nature just is. The only goal of species is to spread genes, not to survive. And no, my system of morality is not just based on serving myself, I want to help others. Yes, helping others does make me feel good. I don't see how that changes anything. I know you didn't mention that but I'm pre-emptively bringing it up because I've heard it before.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
I object to killing thousands or millions on the basis that I somehow have a better reason to live just because I can farm better.
Terms like "nice" are inherently subjective, so unless you can give me a specific example of this kind of situation, I have no idea what you're trying to get across.
What I was getting across was that the said gangs/groups that would come up wouldn't hold your views and be in favor of said social Darwinism. Again I was arguing out of practicality, that this form of anarchism would never work
The only thing I meant to assert by that post was that what would happen is what always happens. The strongest group survives. This doesn't mean that it has to be the group that will be the strongest in the long run; just for the expediency of the moment. In cases where such a dominant group fails to propagate further, this only means that the group is no longer the dominant group, and another, more fit, group would take over.
Any contrivances about what is right or wrong, fit or non-fit, are just that: contrivances. Natural selection is the sole force in deciding what is right or fit, and because of this, what natural selection dictates is inherently correct.
I suppose you could say my main purpose in defending this point of view is that I see our current form of traditional politics as "on it's way out", so to speak; or, more simply, an evolutionary dead end as far as social politics is concerned.
Why is natural selection somehow right, and therefore moral? You are arguing against morality, but you're entire argument, the idea that natural selection is the best way to live, is based off an idea of morality.
Humans are not chimps, just as neither humans nor chimps are the ancestors that they evolved from.
I'm aware, but as Chimps are the closest to us it was a valid point
Our ancestors may have been entirely social creatures, but as humans, we have become less and less reliant on each other and have become more and more of an individual entity.
There isn't a contradiction between individual entities and being social creatures.
If you can show me that humans are just as reliantly and needily social as chimps, I'll concede your point. Otherwise, I contend that evolutionary adaptations of humans--the brain in particular--have greatly decreased the level of dependency we have on other members of the species. Things like technology have only served to speed this up.
I don't know of any studies done on this, but for the basics I can just point out concepts such as friends and loneliness as being evidence for us being social creatures, as well as how humans have
always existed as tribes or clans. There has never been a population of humans that just lived by themselves. It is human nature to form groups, and that's pretty much a universal truth.
Have you noticed that, with increasing effectiveness, social "networking" systems like Facebook, or even cell phones, discourage people from actually taking the time to meet others face to face? Many people I know would rather make a phone call or have a conversation on Facebook than actually go out and do something with their friends in person.
I don't see how that really changes anything, it's still social contact.
In history, government has NEVER been an instrument of peace but of war. In fact, government usually pops up as a RESPONSE for or to a war.
I've only heard of Government popping up (and I mean from say, an earlier tribal system, not a collection of city states) because a few people were in unique positions to exert control over everyone else. But at the same time this is what drove human advancement, the main difference between cultures that advanced or didn't were through government, and at the moment I believe we're at a good payoff of rights to advancement. There are plenty more for us to receive, I'm actually very libertarian when it comes to personal rights.
J
Anarchy already exists in our lives. Let's say the states exist. They(the state) can only use authority where its agents(cops) are there to enforce it. Because police officers are limited, the State's reach is inherently limited. At any particular time, the police can only control a certain limited area. They can't be everywhere or see everything. In fact, they cannot be in most places at most times. Unless there is a police officer close enough to you to protect you, you are essentially in a state of anarchy.
At that point in time, you can act without fear of police action. The fact that these anarchies exist shouldn't be a surprise.
I don't see how that's anarchy at all. People rarely do anything in spur of the moment bursts, people consider past and future events and results. Just because there are no cops with me doesn't mean that I'm free from police actions.
And for where I'm coming from: I think people are naturally "good", but that false ideas and things like that are what hides it from people. So no, I don't think if the government goes away that everyone will just start looting, ****** and murdering. I do think that stuff will happen on a larger level, however. Personally, I don't steal from major stores because I don't want to be caught and prosecuted. It's a flaw but it's what I am. I'm sure there are plenty of other things people would do. But beyond that, like I mentioned before, Government was created through a few people in unique postition to exert control. I think in Anarcho capitalism, government would just easily be started again by those at the top who want to establish dynasties or protect their own interests. I think RDK's method wouldn't really work because human advancement is from societies with government. It was only through government issues labor that large farms started, that led for a surplus that let other people do other jobs that weren't simply based around survival, such as metalworking or astronomy or leather working.
Wanna see Eor's response.
