Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I didn't say it was practical. I said that's all you need. And a lot of animals are endangered because of greed rather than need.

I think her point was that in many climates you'd die sleeping under a tree, not just be a little chilly.

[Saya]

Its not all you need. You'd freeze in the winter, you'd die of bacterial poisoning, you'll be suspect to a host of parasites. I'd like the idea of watching you build an igloo when you realize that trees don't provide the warmth and protection necessary to warrant a shelter.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Why ever not? Because you perceive it to be one of 4 necessary items.

Then they're being selfish aren't they?

The food chains are all interconnected. Plenty? Are there not plenty back-scratchers, yet they are a luxury.

Plenty of water? In that region, maybe, though after you'd drunk the lake there wouldn't be.

Why?

1. If nobody else lives there, I can live there.
2. No. It's their spot. I'd be selfish to stay just because I wanted it. That could cause a fight, which would be bad for us both. Or me, atleast.
3. I can scratch my back with a stick or my hand. The reason I "can" eat squirrels in this case is because I'd NEED to. If I have a house and money, I don't need to. So I don't eat squirrels. And one person eating squirrels is much less significant than one person tearing down the forest.
4. I didn't say I'd drink the lake. That would be kinda... you know... physically impossible.
5. Because I can live without a car or tv and all that. Those are WANTS. I CANNOT live without what I NEED.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

That implies that all systems are the same. I wouldn't say Communism or Nazism are as good as Socialism or Capitalism. Sure. There have been Socialist and Capitalist dictators. But I feel that at their best, they're far better systems than the other two.

But that brings us back full circle, doesn't it. So the question is, do YOU need someone to tell you what to do? Or even in a capitalist society, do YOU need someone or something to be in debt to?

I mean, I'm sitting here, right now, doing nothing wrong. I'm conversing with you, and yet in the absence of a parent figure head in some way, I find myself not going ballistic and doing evil shit.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

Its not all you need. You'd freeze in the winter, you'd die of bacterial poisoning, you'll be suspect to a host of parasites. I'd like the idea of watching you build an igloo when you realize that trees don't provide the warmth and protection necessary to warrant a shelter.

That's assuming I'd live in that sort of climate. Yes, I'd get diseases. So does anything else that lives out there.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

But that brings us back full circle, doesn't it. So the question is, do YOU need someone to tell you what to do? Or even in a capitalist society, do YOU need someone or something to be in debt to?

I mean, I'm sitting here, right now, doing nothing wrong. I'm conversing with you, and yet in the absence of a parent figure head in some way, I find myself not going ballistic and doing evil shit.

No. People don't need a Government. Like a lot of things, it's a luxury. Police are a luxury, waste disposal's a luxury, and courts are a luxury.

[Saya]

In that case medicine would be an need, and you'd be shit out of luck. And yes in most, if not all climates you need a shelter. Even if you lived in a nice warm climate where there was no winter, how do you keep the bugs away? Whats to stop a tiger from dragging you away in the night? What keeps the rain off your back? What keeps your fire dry? Living off the land is brutally hard, and you're lucky if you meet your needs that way. I think if we were all dumped out in the wilderness with nothing but the clothes off our backs, a lot of us would be dead in no time.

[JCC]

Being told what to do is a LUXURY?!

I agree we don't need it, but oppression has never rivalled a back-scratcher in the awesome stakes.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Then why the black/n****r comment?

If you have no mental disorder then that point is totally null.

Why? Because according to the same people who say a mentally ill person's mentally ill, I'm mentally ill. I just happen to think that's bs. They'd probably say everybody here is mentally ill.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

In that case medicine would be an need, and you'd be shit out of luck. And yes in most, if not all climates you need a shelter. Even if you lived in a nice warm climate where there was no winter, how do you keep the bugs away? Whats to stop a tiger from dragging you away in the night? What keeps the rain off your back? What keeps your fire dry? Living off the land is brutally hard, and you're lucky if you meet your needs that way. I think if we were all dumped out in the wilderness with nothing but the clothes off our backs, a lot of us would be dead in no time.

We'd adapt. It's simply survival of the fittest. You know the average cavefolk life expectancy was supposedly around 16? That's how it is. Life would be hard, but people would survive.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

Being told what to do is a LUXURY?!

I agree we don't need it, but oppression has never rivalled a back-scratcher in the awesome stakes.

I think your definition of 'oppression' is wider than mine. =/

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

We'd adapt. It's simply survival of the fittest. You know the average cavefolk life expectancy was supposedly around 16? That's how it is. Life would be hard, but people would survive.

We're talking about needs here, not evolution. If most of us die, our needs aren't being met. Savvy? Especially when we are living in such a way that all our needs can be met, it would be stupid to go back to the ways we were before. And anyway since most of us aren't exposed to the disease that one would come across in the wilds of africa or wherever there isn't any winter, we have no immunity and probably would die.

And as for paleolithic man, the life expectancy ranged from 15-30, 35 in some places for men. Neanderthals matured a lot more quickly than humans did, and they rarely lived past 30. I think the life expectancy for the Inuit before colonizaion was somewhere in the fourties, but it would be hard to say we'd be like that because at least the Inuit knew how to do it and passed their knowledge down, and lived like that since birth, most of us wouldn't know where to start.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

I think your definition of 'oppression' is wider than mine. =/

Or maybe you're more inclined to tolerate a greater amount of oppression than the next guy. Who knows?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

We're talking about needs here, not evolution. If most of us die, our needs aren't being met. Savvy? Especially when we are living in such a way that all our needs can be met, it would be stupid to go back to the ways we were before. And anyway since most of us aren't exposed to the disease that one would come across in the wilds of africa or wherever there isn't any winter, we have no immunity and probably would die.

And as for paleolithic man, the life expectancy ranged from 15-30, 35 in some places for man. Neanderthals matured a lot more quickly than humans did, and they rarely lived past 30.

Different degrees of winter. I never once SUGGESTED going backwards. I'm simply saying that that's all a person needs. Eat, drink, breathe, fuck.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Different degrees of winter. I never once SUGGESTED going backwards. I'm simply saying that that's all a person needs. Eat, drink, breathe, fuck.

You don't need to fuck. :-/ Now I'm just splitting silly hairs.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Or maybe you're more inclined to tolerate a greater amount of oppression than the next guy. Who knows?

He's British, isn't he? I wasn't aware that Britain jails you for speaking your mind. Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me, much. Does the PM kill off all competitors, too?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You don't need to fuck. :-/ Now I'm just splitting silly hairs.

An individual doesn't. But Saya's scenario involved the race, not just the individual. In order for the race to survive, people have to fuck.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Different degrees of winter. I never once SUGGESTED going backwards. I'm simply saying that that's all a person needs. Eat, drink, breathe, fuck.

You're suggesting they way we live now is selfish and living like that isn't. And in any case, it isn't all one needs. Like I said, most of us would die, you especially if you live under a tree the entire time.

Anyway, haven't you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

You're suggesting they way we live now is selfish and living like that isn't. And in any case, it isn't all one needs. Like I said, most of us would die, you especially if you live under a tree the entire time.

Anyway, haven't you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Yes it's selfish. And people die anyway.

"While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research which is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell found little evidence for the ranking of needs Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. Conducted in 2002, a recent study forwards this line of thought, claiming that "the hierarchy of needs is nothing more than a fool's daydream; there is no possible way to classify ever-changing needs as society changes". Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max Neef has also argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature - part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, is the result of any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled." - Wiki.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

He's British, isn't he? I wasn't aware that Britain jails you for speaking your mind. Though I suppose it wouldn't surprise me, much. Does the PM kill off all competitors, too?

Yes and luckily he's taking the liberties to seek out more liberties until a certain goal is met.

I mean, if we're going to say that for now, we have a handful of privileges, we should use them to become even MORE free. Wouldn't you think a common goal of a freer society is something we could all work on or is it safer to just opt out for the lesser of two evils every time?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Yes and luckily he's taking the liberties to seek out more liberties until a certain goal is met.

I mean, if we're going to say that for now, we have a handful of privileges, we should use them to become even MORE free. Wouldn't you think a common goal of a freer society is something we could all work on?

Not a lawless society. There are benefits to government.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Yes it's selfish. And people die anyway.

"While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research which is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell found little evidence for the ranking of needs Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. Conducted in 2002, a recent study forwards this line of thought, claiming that "the hierarchy of needs is nothing more than a fool's daydream; there is no possible way to classify ever-changing needs as society changes". Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max Neef has also argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature - part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, is the result of any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled." - Wiki.

A lot less people die less horribly thanks to the miracles of medicine, and you're just being weird now. How is having our needs met and living together in a city with lots to do and having lots of places to go selfish?

Ooooh, wiki said its not right under the criticism box, stop the presses! A theory has some people disagree with it! Maslow is still plenty valid, and is still taught in universities today.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Not a lawless society. There are benefits to government.

No one is talking about a lawless society. We're talking about a freer society.

Just because we live by a government now, doesn't mean that we can't all as a society work towards a common goal to be without a government.

Security and freedom are not opposed to each other.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

He's British, isn't he? I wasn't aware that Britain jails you for speaking your mind.

They really do.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

No one is talking about a lawless society. We're talking about a freer society.

Just because we live by a government now, doesn't mean that we can't all as a society work towards a common goal to be without a government.

Security and freedom are not opposed to each other.

But what about "no rules". How the hell is an anarchist society going to provide law enforcement?