NationStates Jolt Archive

Every debate on anarchism seems to degrade into "Humans are too evil to live in an anarchist society". I have to wonder where that reasoning comes from. If it were true, then wouldn't government be pointless since the members of government would be too corrupt to rule effectively? If the argument is true, then how is it better to have a madman controlling nuclear weaponry than a madman with one machine gun?

Just because humans are flawed with baser instincts doesn't mean they're evil.

I don't think the concept of anarchism implies that humans are so corrupt as to be corrupt in their institutions, but that anarchism is an alternative to the corruption which these institutions might cause onto others.

How come instinct is the flaw? It works fine for animals?

Every debate on anarchism seems to degrade into "Humans are too evil to live in an anarchist society". I have to wonder where that reasoning comes from. If it were true, then wouldn't government be pointless since the members of government would be too corrupt to rule effectively? If the argument is true, then how is it better to have a madman controlling nuclear weaponry than a madman with one machine gun?

The problem is that the human race is not yet ready for anarchism. Rampant consumerism, limited production, and scarce natural resources mean that the hierarchy will remain. Any efforts at eradicating the hierarchy may do nothing but spread the classes even more.

I don't think the word "evil" really applies. I think "self-centered" or "greedy" fits better. I mean really, name one anarchy that has longer than the absolute shortest amount of time necessary for some dude or dudette to claw, electioneer, or appoint him- or herself new leader. An ungoverned, unorganized population represents an untapped potential that somebody, through kind words or force, is gonna take advantage of.

Erm, Of which someone is gonna take advantage.

That'll do, Bork.

EDIT: Also, this is why the madman with the nuke isn't an issue. Self-interest. A factory owner would as soon burn down his plant.

The problem is that the human race is not yet ready for anarchism. Rampant consumerism, limited production, and scarce natural resources mean that the hierarchy will remain. Any efforts at eradicating the hierarchy may do nothing but spread the classes even more.

True, but the point of promoting anarchist values is to prepare them for it. Once they have learned anarchist values and are "cured" of consumerism, then why do we need hierarchy?

Because I deal with people on a daily basis, and the vast bulk of humanity are untrustworthy...they gossip constantly, they compete for social popularity, even in places like college. A place where we're supposed to share the common bond of being students. Hell, I've gotten into major pissing contests over stuff that in a more rational state I'd consider to be trivial.

And beyond that people enjoy confrontation and being right. Challenging someone's correctness also ticks folks of majorly.

Every debate on anarchism seems to degrade into "Humans are too evil to live in an anarchist society". I have to wonder where that reasoning comes from. If it were true, then wouldn't government be pointless since the members of government would be too corrupt to rule effectively? If the argument is true, then how is it better to have a madman controlling nuclear weaponry than a madman with one machine gun?

The problem is that if there are enough resources to go around people tend to do just fine without government. Human beings lived for tens of thousands of years with no discernable form of government, and when European colonialism of Africa was taking over many of the "tribes" that they confronted had no real government either. We'd ask them who was in charge, and they'd tell us who tended to win arguments a lot. We'd then make that guy the cheif.

The only times that a lack of government becomes a problem is when a group that has an organization structure comes into conflict with one that doesn't the group that does tends to kill the one that doesn't.

Government is essentially a weapon. People tend to gather as many people under one government as they think is neccessary for their defense and no more. That's why we had a civil war. And why we haven't had one since.

I don't think the word "evil" really applies. I think "self-centered" or "greedy" fits better. I mean really, name one anarchy that has longer than the absolute shortest amount of time necessary for some dude or dudette to claw, electioneer, or appoint him- or herself new leader. An ungoverned, unorganized population represents an untapped potential that somebody, through kind words or force, is gonna take advantage of.

Actually, the examples of anarchism I know of were destroyed mainly by outside forces.

The problem is that the human race is not yet ready for anarchism. Rampant consumerism, limited production, and scarce natural resources mean that the hierarchy will remain. Any efforts at eradicating the hierarchy may do nothing but spread the classes even more.

True, but the point of promoting anarchist values is to prepare them for it. Once they have learned anarchist values and are "cured" of consumerism, then why do we need hierarchy?
Why do we need to be cured of consumerism? I think it's a good thing. Drives economies. Enriches those who care to use it properly.

And beyond that, no matter what happens there will be sociopaths. People who just have no respect for their fellow human beings. You know, madmen like Dahmer, Manson, etc.

Why do we need to be cured of consumerism? I think it's a good thing. Drives economies. Enriches those who care to use it properly.

If it stands in the way of freedom and equality, it isn't a good thing. Drug addiction drives economies, too, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

True, but the point of promoting anarchist values is to prepare them for it. Once they have learned anarchist values and are "cured" of consumerism, then why do we need hierarchy?

You will never be able to cure consumerism until production technologies are sufficient. The quickest way to advance production technologies is through the free market. It would follow that as production techonologies do advance the free market would eventually render itself obsolete and combined with transportation and communication technologies, a community based economy and society would form organically.

Until then, I believe anarchy cannot be forced on society without a grave risk of the rise of a all-powerful elite class.

And beyond that, no matter what happens there will be sociopaths. People who just have no respect for their fellow human beings. You know, madmen like Dahmer, Manson, etc.

And those are either the result of psychological abuse (a form of authoritarianism) or something that happens even with government.

You will never be able to cure consumerism until production technologies are sufficient. The quickest way to advance production technologies is through the free market. It would follow that as production techonologies do advance the free market would eventually render itself obsolete and combined with transportation and communication technologies, a community based economy and society would form organically.

Until then, I believe anarchy cannot be forced on society without a grave risk of the rise of a all-powerful elite class.

Actually, consumerism is really more the result of market forces than anything. People want so much stuff because it is "cool" to own it. You don't need $100 shoes, but you are told they are cool, so you start wanting them.

And those are either the result of psychological abuse (a form of authoritarianism) or something that happens even with government.
Or possibly genetic failures. One must realize that about 50% of mental disorders are the result of genetics.

Because I deal with people on a daily basis, and the vast bulk of humanity are untrustworthy...they gossip constantly, they compete for social popularity, even in places like college. A place where we're supposed to share the common bond of being students. Hell, I've gotten into major pissing contests over stuff that in a more rational state I'd consider to be trivial.

And beyond that people enjoy confrontation and being right. Challenging someone's correctness also ticks folks of majorly.

This bit made me laugh. People who are anarchists, are either half-wit adoloscents, or professors.

They are people who have no idea what life is like outside their little books. By no means am I disrespecting education, but anarchists have no idea what the world was like, becuase they're to busy reading the mindless dribble of their fellow anarchists.

Actually, consumerism is really more the result of market forces than anything. People want so much stuff because it is "cool" to own it. You don't need $100 shoes, but you are told they are cool, so you start wanting them.
What's wrong with that? To each his own.

Or possibly genetic failures. One must realize that about 50% of mental disorders are the result of genetics.

I like this guy! Finally someone who isn't a pre-teen filled with philosphical bullshit.

And beyond that, scarcity cannot be removed. There is only a limited amount of any and all resources.

Actually, consumerism is really more the result of market forces than anything. People want so much stuff because it is "cool" to own it. You don't need $100 shoes, but you are told they are cool, so you start wanting them.

Yes, and how could that possibly be changed without revoking the rights of the people?

I like this guy! Finally someone who isn't a pre-teen filled with philosphical bullshit.

Add something to the conversation or quit posting.

This bit made me laugh. People who are anarchists, are either half-wit adoloscents, or professors.

They are people who have no idea what life is like outside their little books. By no means am I disrespecting education, but anarchists have no idea what the world was like, becuase they're to busy reading the mindless dribble of their fellow anarchists.

Actually, the early anarchists were mostly workers who wanted change. Socialism was once very popular with workers and they knew full well what capitalism was. A socialist candidate once got a great deal of the vote in a US presidential election.

How could an anarchy sustain itself if someone decided to get organized? I know I would.

Yes, and how could that possibly be changed without revoking the rights of the people?
It could be argued that the rights of people do not include the right to brainwash others.

Actually, the early anarchists were mostly workers who wanted change. Socialism was once very popular with workers and they knew full well what capitalism was. A socialist candidate once got a great deal of the vote in a US presidential election.
Depending upon what your meaning of "great deal" is. I remember that the most a socialist ever got was around one million votes. (It was Debs, right?) He wasn't even a serious contender in the election.

Or possibly genetic failures. One must realize that about 50% of mental disorders are the result of genetics.

I don't believe that myself. In fact, I'm begining to wonder if science is all its cracked up to be. It seems to find ways of devaluing humanity that I thought only religion was capable of.

How come instinct is the flaw? It works fine for animals?

Worse, we can manage to domesticate animals. Are people so much less sociable than dogs?

;)

It could be argued that the rights of people do not include the right to brainwash others.

How do you draw the line between brainwashing and honest advertising?

anarchists of the world, UNITE

It could be argued that the rights of people do not include the right to brainwash others.
No one is brainwashing, just saying that "this is cool."

Shouldn't I have the right to say that, repeatedly if I feel it is so? Or are we going to put a cap on how many times something can be said?

Depending upon what your meaning of "great deal" is. I remember that the most a socialist ever got was around one million votes. (It was Debs, right?) He wasn't even a serious contender in the election.

Still, that implies that there were at least a million socialists in the US (not counting anarchists who don't vote, women and minorities who couldn't or had a great deal of trouble of voting, etc.)

Worse, we can manage to domesticate animals. Are people so much less sociable than dogs?

;)
We had to spend tens of thousands of years to domesticate the wolf to the dog in a very intense eugenics campaign. Other animals, like cows, are just so docile that it doesn't make any difference.

And beyond that, scarcity cannot be removed. There is only a limited amount of any and all resources.
If that amount is big enough, however, scarcity can be removed in practice. Imagine, for example, that we had the technology to re-arrange matter in any way we like. That would have the effect of virtually eliminating scarcity.

It's very far-fetched, of course, but technically possible. Scarcity will remain a reality in the forseeable future, but not necessarily forever.

Still, that implies that there were at least a million socialists in the US (not counting anarchists who don't vote, women and minorities who couldn't or had a great deal of trouble of voting, etc.)
And that was the high point in the 1920-30 era. Not since has a socialist received nearly as many votes, despite the larger, more diverse voting populace.

I don't believe that myself. In fact, I'm begining to wonder if science is all its cracked up to be. It seems to find ways of devaluing humanity that I thought only religion was capable of.

You don't like that much anymore because it doesn't prove humanity to be as valuable as you'd like it to be?

If that amount is big enough, however, scarcity can be removed in practice. Imagine, for example, that we had the technology to re-arrange matter in any way we like. That would have the effect of virtually eliminating scarcity.

It's very far-fetched, of course, but technically possible. Scarcity will remain a reality in the forseeable future, but not necessarily forever.

If scarcity is even that big a problem, then explain how 6 billion people manage to survive (some with far more than they could possibly need)?

You don't like that much anymore because it doesn't prove humanity to be as valuable as you'd like it to be?

Sure. Unlike some people, I value human life and don't consider it to be nothing more than a mass of atoms reacting according to deterministic laws.

If that amount is big enough, however, scarcity can be removed in practice. Imagine, for example, that we had the technology to re-arrange matter in any way we like. That would have the effect of virtually eliminating scarcity.

It's very far-fetched, of course, but technically possible. Scarcity will remain a reality in the forseeable future, but not necessarily forever.
Someone's been watching Star Trek. I'm dealing with technology that is even conceivable now. Hell, a cold fusion reactor seems like a cakewalk compared to that.

Plus, with the inevitable decay of protons, even that doesn't suffice to totally eliminate scarcity.

Okay, having previously been rebuffed by mention of some unnamed anarchist utopias that were successful until destroyed by outside powers, let me try another approach:

I don't have faith that the dipshit at the corner store is capable of making proper change for a cup of coffee. How am I supposed to have faith that, in the absence of laws, the individuals who currently don't respect the laws we've got will suddenly behave better?

Sure. Unlike some people, I value human life and don't consider it to be nothing more than a mass of atoms reacting according to deterministic laws.

Science is doing nothing to degrade the human experience. It is merely pointing out that there is absolutely nothing special about the human biology.

Sure. Unlike some people, I value human life and don't consider it to be nothing more than a mass of atoms reacting according to deterministic laws.
So, if you don't like it get rid of it? Sure Gregory XV.

Science is doing nothing to degrade the human experience. It is merely pointing out that there is absolutely nothing special about the human biology.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there is something special about us that science can't measure.

No one is brainwashing, just saying that "this is cool."

Shouldn't I have the right to say that, repeatedly if I feel it is so? Or are we going to put a cap on how many times something can be said?
Should you have the right to plant loudspeakers on every street corner and play back the same message over and over again? Would that count as "free speech"? Sounds more like brainwashing to me.

And those are either the result of psychological abuse (a form of authoritarianism) or something that happens even with government.

All psychological problems can be attributed to the government? That is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in years.

And for the other poster, sociopathic tendencies can be eliminated if we adopt the Brave New World styled eugenics.

How could an anarchy sustain itself if someone decided to get organized? I know I would.

Very simple, it wouldn't. Anarchy leads to Fascism, it is that simple. They're thousands of classic examples from history which show, a soicety without government quickly degenerates into a nation of warlords and civil strife. The entire philosphy is so flawed in it's logic I don't understand how anyone can belive in it.

Very simple, it wouldn't. Anarchy leads to Fascism, it is that simple. They're thousands of classic examples from history which show, a soicety without government quickly degenerates into a nation of warlords and civil strife. The entire philosphy is so flawed in it's logic I don't understand how anyone can belive in it.

You should be arguing with Letila, anarchy would give you the perfect opportunity to instill that Centrist/Fascist government that you so long for.

All psychological problems can be attributed to the government? That is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in years.

It's more accurate to say they are the result of bad parenting and unhealthy social conditions (consider the massive levels of paraphilias in some nations with pronounced authoritarianism in their cultures). Government itself plays a relatively small rôle in the development of psychological disorders.

Should you have the right to plant loudspeakers on every street corner and play back the same message over and over again? Would that count as "free speech"? Sounds more like brainwashing to me.
If the people who own the street corners agree to it. Which in most cases would be the city, as they are the organization that improved the otherwise raw street corner to a nice and fiendly clean bit of concrete. So, basically, there it is. There may also be an arguement against doing so if it lowers property values in the area.

Very simple, it wouldn't. Anarchy leads to Fascism, it is that simple. They're thousands of classic examples from history which show, a soicety without government quickly degenerates into a nation of warlords and civil strife. The entire philosphy is so flawed in it's logic I don't understand how anyone can belive in it.

A society with an authoritarian culture degrades into warlordism without government. Afghanistan and Somalia are extremely authoritarian (note the way they treat women, for one) and that is way they became warlordist.

It's more accurate to say they are the result of bad parenting and unhealthy social conditions (consider the massive levels of paraphilias in some nations with pronounced authoritarianism in their cultures). Government itself plays a relatively small rôle in the development of psychological disorders.

Have you ever thought that psychological problems are genetic? I am not arguing the fact that abuse, molestation, and poverty could warp someone's psyche, but most psychological problems are genetic, and can be easily weeded out.

It's more accurate to say they are the result of bad parenting and unhealthy social conditions (consider the massive levels of paraphilias in some nations with pronounced authoritarianism in their cultures). Government itself plays a relatively small rôle in the development of psychological disorders.
Once again, I reiterate the number that we heard in Psychology 100. It can be found through the use of twin studies and the like that psychological disorders can be traced by about 50% to genetics.

A society with an authoritarian culture degrades into warlordism without government. Afghanistan and Somalia are extremely authoritarian (note the way they treat women, for one) and that is way they became warlordist.

Ok, so you intend on establishing your commune in a place without a history of violence or authortiatarnism, let me think.........Hmmm maybe it's a place called utopia.

If you knew a little Greek you would know utopia means "no place." And that is where anarchy would work, no place.

Have you ever thought that psychological problems are genetic? I am not arguing the fact that abuse, molestation, and poverty could warp someone's psyche, but most psychological problems are genetic, and can be easily weeded out.

Through the exact devaluation of humanity that I oppose. If we give someone the power to decide who has the right to live, then human life is drained of all value other than utility to the powers that be.

Through the exact devaluation of humanity that I oppose. If we give someone the power to decide who has the right to live, then human life is drained of all value other than utility to the powers that be.
Even though there is serious and extremely credible evidence that points to this conclusion, Greg XV?

Once again, I reiterate the number that we heard in Psychology 100. It can be found through the use of twin studies and the like that psychological disorders can be traced by about 50% to genetics.

So where does free will and human dignity come in? It doesn't. In fact, psychology is a useless science now if so much is genetic, anyway.

Even though there is serious and extremely credible evidence that points to this conclusion, Greg XV?

So? I value humanity more than reason itself. When logic and morality conflict, I go with morality.

So where does free will and human dignity come in? It doesn't. In fact, psychology is a useless science now if so much is genetic, anyway.
Psychology is the study of human behaviors and why we do things. I think that even if we find that human behavior is entirely genetically determined (which it clearly isn't, there are environmental factors) it is useful for psychology to be around to know what genetic variants cause what.

Our genetics are part of ourselves. They help us to make our decisions by ourselves. And like I said, genetics accounts for about 50% of human behavior. My genes are still me. They are just tyrranical over myself.


And human dignity just comes from the fact that we are human. Nothing else. We're people.

Psychology is the study of human behaviors and why we do things. I think that even if we find that human behavior is entirely genetically determined (which it clearly isn't, there are environmental factors) it is useful for psychology to be around to know what genetic variants cause what.

Then doesn't that make psychological therapy more or less pointless?

So? I value humanity more than reason itself. When logic and morality conflict, I go with morality.
Wait...where have I heard that before...gimme a moment....



I remember! Pope Gregory XV! About the heretical claims of Galileo Galilei!

Then doesn't that make psychological therapy more or less pointless?
Like I said, our behaviors are 50% determined. Psychotherapy can help with the other 50%.

Or maybe that heretical madman Charles Darwin for saying we evolved from Apes. How ludicrous!

The problem is that the human race is not yet ready for anarchism. Rampant consumerism, limited production, and scarce natural resources mean that the hierarchy will remain. Any efforts at eradicating the hierarchy may do nothing but spread the classes even more.

True, but the point of promoting anarchist values is to prepare them for it. Once they have learned anarchist values and are "cured" of consumerism, then why do we need hierarchy?

I know many people who say that anarchy is a fine idea, but the they think like you do. I might be paranoid, but I think the system in place currently is designed to prevent change. Just a thought.

Letila your philosophy is incredibly dangerous. And I can only hope that it never comes into common practice.

Wait...where have I heard that before...gimme a moment....



I remember! Pope Gregory XV! About the heretical claims of Galileo Galilei!

Actually, given the whole authoritarianism and crusades thing, I'm not sure the Catholic Church really valued human life that much. In this case, I am merely stating that my morality overrides my support of reason while the church persecuted Galileo.

Actually, given the whole authoritarianism and crusades thing, I'm not sure the Catholic Church really valued human life that much. In this case, I am merely stating that my morality overrides my support of reason while the church persecuted Galileo.
I don't see how your morality of getting rid of "heretical" science is any different from that of the Catholic Church. Or any less authoritarian for that matter.

I don't see how your morality of getting rid of "heretical" science is any different from that of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church used force while I am an anarchist, for one.

Letila your philosophy is incredibly dangerous. And I can only hope that it never comes into common practice.

My philosophy? Yours justifies eugenics and even genocide. My philosophy doesn't make any exceptions for oppression.

Yeah, I HATE IT when someone says something like:"The human race is full of retards, liars, and evil maniacs". Well, if you say something like that you are greatly offending the hard work God put into making us and our world. Not to mention, but if you make fun of humanity, you make fun of yourself. But I do have to agree with the fact that humans do tend to rely a little too much on baser emotions and too little on true sprirtuality.

Plus, don't think that all humans, given the chance, would be all :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:. Some, like me, are just :eek: at how other people always seem to know EVERYTHING. I admit to mistakes, I don't drown myself in my stupid pride. I'm not perfect, but I wish to go to heaven when I die, unlike some who just care if they have $1,000,000 by the time thay die.

So, finally getting the chance to read all this...humanity is cool and all, its all just satan's fault.

The Catholic Church used force while I am an anarchist, for one.

So, how are the scientists not supposed to research on this stuff? Just because? That's a violation of academic freedom.

Why shouldn't they? Because it's moral?

Does it violate someone else's health? That is one of the key tests in scientific studies. And studying human psychology and it's relation to genetics doesn't seem to actually harm anybody.

My philosophy? Yours justifies eugenics and even genocide. My philosophy doesn't make any exceptions for oppression.
My philosophy has corollaries that make it so that there aren't reasons for genocide or eugenics.

Corollary I.
As the genetic variations are from individual to individual, there is no genetic component that crosses ethnic groups on the issue of behavior.

Corollary II.
As some of the genetic variations are the direct result of recent mutations, then Eugenics does not provice a solution.

Ok, so you intend on establishing your commune in a place without a history of violence or authortiatarnism, let me think.........Hmmm maybe it's a place called utopia.

If you knew a little Greek you would know utopia means "no place." And that is where anarchy would work, no place.

Yes Letila, you better catch the next boat to Utopia, the only place where this ill-concieved ideology could work.

So, how are the scientists not supposed to research on this stuff? Just because? That's a violation of academic freedom.

Why shouldn't they? Because it's moral?

Does it violate someone else's health? That is one of the key tests in scientific studies. And studying human psychology and it's relation to genetics doesn't seem to actually harm anybody.

I'm not saying we should ban anything, however I reject scientific conclusions that have negative moral impacts. Saying we are products of genetics allows us to kill people with "bad genes".

My philosophy has corollaries that make it so that there aren't reasons for genocide or eugenics.

Corollary I.
As the genetic variations are from individual to individual, there is no genetic component that crosses ethnic groups on the issue of behavior.

Corollary II.
As some of the genetic variations are the direct result of recent mutations, then Eugenics does not provice a solution.

However, if someone disagrees on those conclusions, your basic ideas can still be used for bad. If the differences are individual, that still allows us to kill individuals we decide have "bad genes".

Deception of mentally capable adults is a crime. And as far as I'm concerned withholding the ability to research such information is deception.

Show the people only the truth you want them to see.

Yes Letila, you better catch the next boat to Utopia, the only place where this ill-concieved ideology could work.

How do you know it won't work?

Deception of mentally capable adults is a crime. And as far as I'm concerned withholding the ability to research such information is deception.

Show the people only the truth you want them to see.

I never said anything like that. The simple fact is that genetic determinism has been used for bad. Hitler used it to justify genocide and in the US, eugenics was once widely accepted and the conclusion that Black people were genetically less intelligent and more violent was considered scientifically sound.

The fact of the matter is, that a world where we don't need any governance would be great, but we don't have that world now, and getting a world like that would be extremely difficult if even possible. You would need to radically change the mentality of several billion people, without, I might add, making the aforementioned change in any way compulsory, such as a government would.

I'm not saying we should ban anything, however I reject scientific conclusions that have negative moral impacts. Saying we are products of genetics allows us to kill people with "bad genes".
Even that goes contrary to the basic philosophy of science. Being open-minded yet skeptical. If we find that there is sufficient evidence to lead us to a conclusion, then it should be accepted. Espescially in cases where Bay's theorem is applicable, if Bay's Theorem is able to show that the likelihood that new evidence proves or disproves an old hypothesis, then we really should consider evidence to be true.

However, if someone disagrees on those conclusions, your basic ideas can still be used for bad. If the differences are individual, that still allows us to kill individuals we decide have "bad genes".
The theory cannot exist without the corollaries.

Any theory or philosophy can be perverted to evil if people are able to do so.

Ex: The Nazi use of Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection.
Ex: Stalinist use of communist theory.

We had to spend tens of thousands of years to domesticate the wolf to the dog in a very intense eugenics campaign. Other animals, like cows, are just so docile that it doesn't make any difference.

Okay, how about every other animal taken straight out of the wild and domesticated to live with people? You know, someone somewhere keeps just about everything as a pet.

Of course, such pets may lash out at people once in a while (as do dogs, anyway), but still... that's pretty docile. It is somewhat hard to believe that people are so much worse.

I'm not saying we should ban anything, however I reject scientific conclusions that have negative moral impacts. Saying we are products of genetics allows us to kill people with "bad genes".



However, if someone disagrees on those conclusions, your basic ideas can still be used for bad. If the differences are individual, that still allows us to kill individuals we decide have "bad genes".

You don't have to kill them, sterilization works just as well.

Even that goes contrary to the basic philosophy of science. Being open-minded yet skeptical. If we find that there is sufficient evidence to lead us to a conclusion, then it should be accepted. Espescially in cases where Bay's theorem is applicable, if Bay's Theorem is able to show that the likelihood that new evidence proves or disproves an old hypothesis, then we really should consider evidence to be true.

Even when it justifies terrible things?

The theory cannot exist without the corollaries.

Any theory or philosophy can be perverted to evil if people are able to do so.

Ex: The Nazi use of Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection.

But even with the corollaries, it has problems, such as justifying individual killing.

Okay, how about every other animal taken straight out of the wild and domesticated to live with people? You know, someone somewhere keeps just about everything as a pet.

Of course, such pets may lash out at people once in a while (as do dogs, anyway), but still... that's pretty docile. It is somewhat hard to believe that people are so much worse.
Beyond that, most animals kept as pets (such as cats) are small enough that their attacks do minimal harm, and we even declaw cats in the face of this evidence.

But, let's say someone brings a baby lion to live with them. How do they do this? Simple, the lion is led to associate the person with food, namely milk, and therefore the person is the mother. Lion's typically avoid harming their mothers. This is a result of a genetic drive to protect their group, and they associate the person with their group. Other people may come around, but because of the maternal figure's acceptance of the other person, the lion will acccept the other person.

Plus, the impact of classical conditioning on an animal cannot be ignored. If the animal is nice, then it gets a reward. If not, it doesn't.

With dogs. Some breeds are bred for docility. Others are bred for intelligence. Others are bred for aggressiveness.

Even when it justifies terrible things?
Terrible things aren't justified by my theory.


But even with the corollaries, it has problems, such as justifying individual killing.
Fine, how about a third corollary.

Corollary III.
As genetics is not the single determining factor in human behavior, it cannot be used to justify selection killing.

Fine, how about a third corollary.

Corollary III.
As genetics is not the single determining factor in human behavior, it cannot be used to justify selection killing.

Fine. Still, it doesn't exactly give us much reason to value humanity. My point is if behavior is largely genetic, then doesn't that open up the door for breeding humans?

Indeed, imagine of a government started breeding people to obey without question, tolerate massive taxation, join the army without any fear, etc.

Fine. Still, it doesn't exactly give us much reason to value humanity. My point is if behavior is largely genetic, then doesn't that open up the door for breeding humans?
The third corollary handles that as well, since some genetic variations are the result of mutations that occur during various stages of growth. The parents may hold no signs of these genes, but a replication error within the embryo can be responsible.

There is no natural reason to value humanity. As nature clearly doesn't do so. But there is a created reason. Because you are a human, as am I, we are in the same condition, the same mortal life, the same transient existence. We value each other because of what this basic thing we have in common.

Extension I. on Corollary III.
The third corollary states that, since some genetic variations are the result of mutations that occur during various stages of growth, and the parents may hold no signs of these genes, but a replication error within the embryo can be responsible, makes eugenics non-effective.

I admit that I haven't read through this thread at all, but I'd like to point out that scientific theories don't "justify" anything. Ethics is a separate pursuit from science. Science only tries to find the truth, to find out how the universe works. Ethics is how we decide what to do with ourselves. Shunning science because having knowledge of genetics might cause evil is to say that ignorance is a good thing, a belief that I find abhorrent.

How come instinct is the flaw? It works fine for animals?

I dont think instinct is the flaw, its what we do. We as people can (not always) end up doing something that is ultimatly harmful to ourselves, others, enviroment, or a combination of all three. I think maybe that we have lost much of our orginal instincts as we have lost a true need for those instincts. And im sorry if this makes no sense, I have been hanging out with a philosopy major for too long.

How come instinct is the flaw? It works fine for animals?
Instinct works fine for survival, but upon transcending survival into civil society, it gets messy.


I've got to go now, as I have some readings to do for class tomorrow.

Extension I. on Corollary III.
The third corollary states that, since some genetic variations are the result of mutations that occur during various stages of growth, and the parents may hold no signs of these genes, but a replication error within the embryo can be responsible, makes eugenics non-effective.

Still, doesn't your theory imply that some people are inherently evil? If pædophilia is genetic, what can you do about someone who is pædophilic?

Still, doesn't your theory imply that some people are inherently evil? If pædophilia is genetic, what can you do about someone who is pædophilic?

Prevent them from working as a teacher would be a good start.

I know a pair of twins (Identical, mind you), and if behavior traits are genetic, they should be quite similar.

Traits of Twin 1:
Popular
Sociable
heterosexual

Traits of twin 2:
has attention Deficit Disorder
unpopular
anti-social
possibly bisexual

These twins have identical genes, but were exposed to completely different environments at early childhood. this is obviously environmental factors, not genetics.

My mother is a doctor, and she was looking through some old medical records and found a physicians' guide to performing phrenology (The study of bumps on one's head). It was believed that the bumps on someone's head controlled their behavior and traits etc. I am in full support of genetic studies, but I see a lot of parallels between genetics and phrenology.

*snip*

Okay... I'm not trying to make a serious argument here. Just an "idle" one.

:D

Although I still tend to think that for the most part people don't go around hurting others "just because." You usually have to throw property into the mix before we become really violent.

Still, doesn't your theory imply that some people are inherently evil? If pædophilia is genetic, what can you do about someone who is pædophilic?
No, just that some people have a greater propensity (am I using that word right) to evil.

If humans weren't such perverse, malodorous, odious, infinitely corrupt, hopeless tainted, depraved creatures, anarchism would work flawlessly. Alas, humans are unfortunately as I described, making at least some semblance of government necessary to our survival. That's just my opinion, of course.

I know a pair of twins (Identical, mind you), and if behavior traits are genetic, they should be quite similar.

Traits of Twin 1:
Popular
Sociable
heterosexual

Traits of twin 2:
has attention Deficit Disorder
unpopular
anti-social
possibly bisexual

These twins have identical genes, but were exposed to completely different environments at early childhood. this is obviously environmental factors, not genetics.

My mother is a doctor, and she was looking through some old medical records and found a physicians' guide to performing phrenology (The study of bumps on one's head). It was believed that the bumps on someone's head controlled their behavior and traits etc. I am in full support of genetic studies, but I see a lot of parallels between genetics and phrenology.

Only difference being that with phrenology there wasn't any actual experimental evidence to back it up. It was also highly subjective, often relying on someone saying that the bump felt like it was there. Phrenology started out with a conclusion. Genetic psychology started out with a desire to know whether there was a correllation between genes and behavior. And it reached the conclusion that it was such.

The experimental method is proven sound for genetics, the experimental method for phrenology was unsound.

Genetic evidence, on the other hand has loads of experimental support, and yes, there are of course deviations from the rule, but by and far, most twins share similar characteristics.

Another important thing to notice is a graph that is in my psychology text. This isn't the exact graph by any means, but it displays the same point.

http://img110.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img110&image=twinbehavior1vc.jpg

Okay... I'm not trying to make a serious argument here. Just an "idle" one.

:D

Although I still tend to think that for the most part people don't go around hurting others "just because." You usually have to throw property into the mix before we become really violent.
Not really, power is an extraordinarily powerful motive for many people. The ability to control others. That's when it gets really really bad. Property can actually exist in a fairly benign manner. Property helps everyone's life, that's all it really does. But power gets nasty. Property is not inherently evil, at worst it's inherently neutral. Power on the other hand can be evil (it can also be good too.)

And let's face it, a society without controls on the exercise of power is very very dangerous. But we need power. We need a power that controls power. That controls it ruthlessly and emotionlessly. That's government. But we need to control the power in the government. So, we write a paper document, emotionless and cold, that controls the government from abusing it's power. So, we have a strange web that protects from power abuses. And justice exists.

Power is a far greater threat than property. Power can

Vittos Ordination
How do you draw the line between brainwashing and honest advertising?

The line between honest advertisement and brainwashing has to do with how the commercials are made. Most commercials today work by linking emotions to their products. For instance, let's say a commercial attributes happiness to drinking soda. The next time someone sees a can of soda, they'll want to drink it to feel happy. Honest advertisement involves the presentation of facts to prove that your product is the best. Lying makes this unhonest, of course.
Basically, if an advertisement is aimed at your emotions or it lies, then it's unhonest advertisement. If an advertisement is aimed at your logic and tells the truth, then it's honest advertisement.

The line between honest advertisement and brainwashing has to do with how the commercials are made. Most commercials today work by linking emotions to their products. For instance, let's say a commercial attributes happiness to drinking soda. The next time someone sees a can of soda, they'll want to drink it to feel happy. Honest advertisement involves the presentation of facts to prove that your product is the best. Lying makes this unhonest, of course.
Basically, if an advertisement is aimed at your emotions or it lies, then it's unhonest advertisement. If an advertisement is aimed at your logic and tells the truth, then it's honest advertisement.
Most people don't use logic, it's too hard.

Every debate on anarchism seems to degrade into "Humans are too evil to live in an anarchist society". I have to wonder where that reasoning comes from. If it were true, then wouldn't government be pointless since the members of government would be too corrupt to rule effectively? If the argument is true, then how is it better to have a madman controlling nuclear weaponry than a madman with one machine gun?

Good point. It was beter with enlightened despotism.

Good point. It was beter with enlightened despotism.
Frederick the Great! Yay!

Constantly watching television which is aimed at emotions helps dull logic. The tube technology almost all televisions are made with puts people into a sleep-like state identical to staring at a blank wall.

Sorry I can't quote online sources. I got this information from a paper my teacher found somewhere. I believe it is called: "Television: Opiate of the Masses".

Good point. It was beter with enlightened despotism.

But there's no such thing.

Constantly watching television which is aimed at emotions helps dull logic. The tube technology almost all televisions are made with puts people into a sleep-like state identical to staring at a blank wall.

Sorry I can't quote online sources. I got this information from a paper my teacher found somewhere. I believe it is called: "Television: Opiate of the Masses".
Well then, don't watch television.

For the most part, TV is the opiate of the masses. Not all shows are like The Matrix or Neon Genesis Evangelion.

*snip*

Sure, but what does anybody do with power without property?

(I'm still not taking this very seriously... since in my opinion this argument has nothing to do with anarchism. Just having fun.)

:)

Sure, but what does anybody do with power without property?

(I'm still not taking this very seriously... since in my opinion this argument has nothing to do with anarchism. Just having fun.)

:)
1.) Make people do stuff for you.
2.) Have thousands of soldiers, wearing shiny jackboots marching in unison, just for you.
3.) Make people just plain do stuff.
4.) Punish those you don't like.

Just a few things that you can do if you have power, but not property.

1.) Make people do stuff for you.
2.) Have thousands of soldiers, wearing shiny jackboots marching in unison, just for you.
3.) Make people just plain do stuff.
4.) Punish those you don't like.

Just a few things that you can do if you have power, but not property.

Yeah.... I won't really bother to flesh this argument out... I just have a real sense that those sorts of desires are not exactly "innate." Besides, you need a lot of property to support (not to mention produce) all those jackboots.

Power just seems like more trouble than it's worth without property.

*shrug*

Every debate on anarchism seems to degrade into "Humans are too evil to live in an anarchist society". I have to wonder where that reasoning comes from. If it were true, then wouldn't government be pointless since the members of government would be too corrupt to rule effectively? If the argument is true, then how is it better to have a madman controlling nuclear weaponry than a madman with one machine gun?

Government is a restrain on people, so that we don't go crazy with a machine gun on each other. But then you are correct that we are left with the problem with the restraint on government.

Back in the middle ages, there was no restrain on the government. The king was law. But that was changed when Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex, or The Law is King. No it was assumed that even the king was under the rule of some sort of "higher" law. The high point of this idea came at the Nuremberg trials where people of other nations judged the Nazi leaders based ont this "higher" law. But today we are facing a serious problem because we have lost the idea that there is any "higher" law. The only law is the law of the state, and we are moving back to Rex Lex, or the king is law. In the case of the US, the Supreme Court is law.

It might also be noted that when the framers of the US Constitution were setting up our government, they were fully aware of the possiblity of a legislature or other elected officals to become tyrants in thier own right. This why we have the seperation of powers. The idea is that one branch of the government will not take too much power because it will have to fight the other branches for it. It's inefficent, but efficiency is not the point. The point is to keep the power split and the people free.

Only difference being that with phrenology there wasn't any actual experimental evidence to back it up. It was also highly subjective, often relying on someone saying that the bump felt like it was there. Phrenology started out with a conclusion. Genetic psychology started out with a desire to know whether there was a correllation between genes and behavior. And it reached the conclusion that it was such.

The experimental method is proven sound for genetics, the experimental method for phrenology was unsound.

Genetic evidence, on the other hand has loads of experimental support, and yes, there are of course deviations from the rule, but by and far, most twins share similar characteristics.

Another important thing to notice is a graph that is in my psychology text. This isn't the exact graph by any means, but it displays the same point.

http://img110.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img110&image=twinbehavior1vc.jpg

The only reason the identical twins shown in your graph share so many behavior traits is because they are usually, unlike the twins in my example, raised in the same environment and exposed to the same things. All I'm saying about the phrenology thing is that a century or so down the line people might say "Can you believed they actually researched that crap?"

For the most part, TV is the opiate of the masse.

Just a cotton-pickin minnit. I thought opiates were the opiates of the masses. That or corn syrup.

...

Ya know...

If you're in an anarchy...

By definition...

There are no laws...

Including anti-consumerist laws...

Including anti-takeover laws...

Including anti-anything considered bad by anarchists laws...

You know that, right?

Right?

Hello?

The only reason the identical twins shown in your graph share so many behavior traits is because they are usually, unlike the twins in my example, raised in the same environment and exposed to the same things. All I'm saying about the phrenology thing is that a century or so down the line people might say "Can you believed they actually researched that crap?"
Oh no, the twins in my graph are special. They were separated at birth for various reasons, and didn't come into contact until well into their lives.

Beyond that...A century ago a man called Einstein postulated his theories regarding relativity. We still consider them to be correct today.

Yeah.... I won't really bother to flesh this argument out... I just have a real sense that those sorts of desires are not exactly "innate." Besides, you need a lot of property to support (not to mention produce) all those jackboots.

Power just seems like more trouble than it's worth without property.

*shrug*
And, beyond that, Sigmund Freud wrote in his piece on civilization, that property did the exact opposite of what you're claiming it does. Freud in fact says that property is a moderator of power. Why? Because it helps to focus our natural aggressive tendencies upon goods rather than other people.

And, beyond that, Sigmund Freud wrote in his piece on civilization, that property did the exact opposite of what you're claiming it does. Freud in fact says that property is a moderator of power. Why? Because it helps to focus our natural aggressive tendencies upon goods rather than other people.
Ah, he was just a coked up mommy's boy anyway.

Ah, he was just a coked up mommy's boy anyway.

Yet his theories are accepted by thousands of psychologists...

And, beyond that, Sigmund Freud wrote in his piece on civilization, that property did the exact opposite of what you're claiming it does. Freud in fact says that property is a moderator of power. Why? Because it helps to focus our natural aggressive tendencies upon goods rather than other people.

While I accept the gist of what he said (the concept of an unconscious, defense mechanisms, etc.), there really are a lot of problems. In fact, have you noticed how many psychoanalytic theorists seem to have brought in stuff with dubious scientific backing, like Jung's collective unconscious or Reich's orgone?

While I accept the gist of what he said (the concept of an unconscious, defense mechanisms, etc.), there really are a lot of problems. In fact, have you noticed how many psychoanalytic theorists seem to have brought in stuff with dubious scientific backing, like Jung's collective unconscious or Reich's orgone?
Admittedly, some folks have come along with some rather odd ideas, but Freud himself, as the center of psychoanalysis, is pretty well backed.

Admittedly, some folks have come along with some rather odd ideas, but Freud himself, as the center of psychoanalysis, is pretty well backed.

True, he certainly never came up with orgone. So you tend to take Freud relatively seriously?

True, he certainly never came up with orgone. So you tend to take Freud relatively seriously?
Yeah, I don't exactly find his psychosexual stages of development during the childhood years to be extremely convincing, but they do kind of seem to make sense.

Although I do admit there are holes in Freud's theories. Mainly this is a result of the lack of knowledge about genetics at the time, so the errors are forgiveable. And with certain corollaries for genetics, the theories can be made acceptable for modern times.

And, beyond that, Sigmund Freud wrote in his piece on civilization, that property did the exact opposite of what you're claiming it does. Freud in fact says that property is a moderator of power. Why? Because it helps to focus our natural aggressive tendencies upon goods rather than other people.

That is not what he says at all.

In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property.

All of which is true enough. He was arguing, of course, against the romantic communists of the nineteenth century who believed that human beings are "inherently good," and that there would be literally no need for laws in communist society because people would have no desire to hurt one another.

This has certainly never been my claim. I merely argue that systematic violence and oppression is based largely on property. Thus, in a world in which property is less prominent, you would certainly have "crimes of passion" that it is impossible to prevent, but overall a much less worrysome problem of crime..

Later, Freud makes this interesting comment:

I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction [of getting people to act 'morally'] than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature.

It Burns!!