ok, so there are fundamental things here i don’t agree with.
when mentioning peer pressure, i am talking about the need for acquiescence in matters which a person would otherwise not agree to. all the other methods you mention are ways to reach understanding sure, but you will have the contrarian, it’s a fact of life and i mention peer pressure as the only known way to compel without resorting to “violence” which i am using broadly. as the threat of the police can be considered a violence against citizens. plus all the same methods you mention can be the cause of the division in the first place…
we also seem to have a different understanding of the tragedy of the commons. the claim that humans, unless under the duress of the capitalist system would not exhibit these weaknesses is completely alien to human nature. even when you consider the most pure example of such society, the family. children having no real needs unmet, and even most wants satisfied, will still take every inch available, wether it’s warranted. this quirk in humans is seen before the advent of capitalism which tracks as those who did not act it were less fit then those who did. this is akin to claiming that of capitalism didn’t exist, people would not lie, chat, or steal.
i don’t remember saying people will become evil during crunch time, but i take it that is your understanding of the tragedy of the commons. i think evil may be a bit strong, but i understand the tragedy is just ‘being in the wrong’ … that the tragedy didn’t start at crunch time. the tragedy started during good and plentiful times, a but the consequences didn’t happen until crunch time. the parable has the neighbors taking more then they needed from the public trust during the good time to prepare themselves incase there would be bad times. if you were to try to convince me that people are only self serving because of capitalistic pressures, that would be an uphill battle. and to assume that all people would be the same in this matter is overgeneralizing individuals, and sadly the true tragedy is that this qirk is infectious, it only takes one. usually this is held in check via threat of societal ‘violence’.
to say that coercive violence is bad for people and society is not anything i can argue one way or the other. i could and may agree, but its purpose was never to establish a bother/sisterhood, but to change the risk calculus for taking advantage of the collective. now i am not fully defending capitalism here. it’s beyond obvious that this benefits the chosen few at the extreme detriment of the meny. that capitalism can’t last 100 years without having to be burned down and started over.
without squaring what i consider fundamental human flaws, i do not believe an anarchistic society could run beyond groups larger then that of a family, or real small village. and if that’s the goal… then great sacrifices will have to be made, no public works, no schools, no job specialization, no technology, just survival. art may survive in some limited capacity
ok, so there are fundamental things here i don’t agree with.
when mentioning peer pressure, i am talking about the need for acquiescence in matters which a person would otherwise not agree to. all the other methods you mention are ways to reach understanding sure, but you will have the contrarian, it’s a fact of life and i mention peer pressure as the only known way to compel without resorting to “violence” which i am using broadly. as the threat of the police can be considered a violence against citizens. plus all the same methods you mention can be the cause of the division in the first place…
we also seem to have a different understanding of the tragedy of the commons. the claim that humans, unless under the duress of the capitalist system would not exhibit these weaknesses is completely alien to human nature. even when you consider the most pure example of such society, the family. children having no real needs unmet, and even most wants satisfied, will still take every inch available, wether it’s warranted. this quirk in humans is seen before the advent of capitalism which tracks as those who did not act it were less fit then those who did. this is akin to claiming that of capitalism didn’t exist, people would not lie, chat, or steal.
i don’t remember saying people will become evil during crunch time, but i take it that is your understanding of the tragedy of the commons. i think evil may be a bit strong, but i understand the tragedy is just ‘being in the wrong’ … that the tragedy didn’t start at crunch time. the tragedy started during good and plentiful times, a but the consequences didn’t happen until crunch time. the parable has the neighbors taking more then they needed from the public trust during the good time to prepare themselves incase there would be bad times. if you were to try to convince me that people are only self serving because of capitalistic pressures, that would be an uphill battle. and to assume that all people would be the same in this matter is overgeneralizing individuals, and sadly the true tragedy is that this qirk is infectious, it only takes one. usually this is held in check via threat of societal ‘violence’.
to say that coercive violence is bad for people and society is not anything i can argue one way or the other. i could and may agree, but its purpose was never to establish a bother/sisterhood, but to change the risk calculus for taking advantage of the collective. now i am not fully defending capitalism here. it’s beyond obvious that this benefits the chosen few at the extreme detriment of the meny. that capitalism can’t last 100 years without having to be burned down and started over.
without squaring what i consider fundamental human flaws, i do not believe an anarchistic society could run beyond groups larger then that of a family, or real small village. and if that’s the goal… then great sacrifices will have to be made, no public works, no schools, no job specialization, no technology, just survival. art may survive in some limited capacity