>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
Do you have any experience with unions? Because unions are constantly vying for each other's territory. In the construction industry there are bizarre disputes over things like whether the metal workers union or the roofing union gets to put on metal roofing.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
What makes you think democracy will be what your system ends up with when in practice?
There isn't, people get to decide how they want to live. They could form a representative constitutional republic if they wanted to, one that doesn't have a monopoly on force and violence and is voluntary.
rayofash on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
Do you have any experience with unions? Because unions are constantly vying for each other's territory. In the construction industry there are bizarre disputes over things like whether the metal workers union or the roofing union gets to put on metal roofing.
I am familiar with unions, they do have problems and some of them are just evil.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Which is exactly what I meant. They also change things around to see if it reacts the same.
Which I think needs to change. People need to be educated about the IWW.
You do realize that expecting every single member of the workforce to join one union (and a radical one in both organization and ideology at that) is a bit overoptimistic, yes?
Also, if the IWW or any similar union did become that powerful society would in short order no longer be capitalist.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Which is exactly what I meant. They also change things around to see if it reacts the same.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
So....
You get to decide?
The community gets to.
So....
Tyranny of the majority?
There's also precedent and the final decision is the arbitrator or arbitrators or the jurors.
Do you have any experience with unions? Because unions are constantly vying for each other's territory. In the construction industry there are bizarre disputes over things like whether the metal workers union or the roofing union gets to put on metal roofing.
I am familiar with unions, they do have problems and some of them are just evil.
Yep! So "Everyone in a union" doesn't solve jack. Not to mention that they're basically mini-governments. Union dues are taxes.
Which I think needs to change. People need to be educated about the IWW.
You do realize that expecting every single member of the workforce to join one union (and a radical one in both organization and ideology at that) is a bit overoptimistic, yes?
Also, if the IWW or any similar union did become that powerful society would in short order no longer be capitalist.
Do you have any experience with unions? Because unions are constantly vying for each other's territory. In the construction industry there are bizarre disputes over things like whether the metal workers union or the roofing union gets to put on metal roofing.
I am familiar with unions, they do have problems and some of them are just evil.
Yep! So "Everyone in a union" doesn't solve jack. Not to mention that they're basically mini-governments. Union dues are taxes.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
No it isn't.
You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
No it isn't.
You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.
Only if you're looking for the exact same thing. Finding a new filament for the light bulb involved doing the same thing over and over with different materials.
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
No it isn't.
You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
Communities and exposure would enforce them.
Based on whose regulation? What scale are you talking about here? Why would a community that relies entirely on a specific industry for their livelihood be trusted to regulate that industry in an un-biased manner, let alone enofrce that regulation?
You need an end to tribalism which is possible in a modern Bob Wright style world where everyone becomes part of a big circle. Until you have that (which would sound like a Marxist end game to some) you end up with states that need to place a premium on self defense which probably leads to a government which then leads to that government (cuz it's already there) being used for a lot more than self defense.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
>"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
No it isn't.
You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
Communities and exposure would enforce them.
Based on whose regulation? What scale are you talking about here? Why would a community that relies entirely on a specific industry for their livelihood be trusted to regulate that industry in an un-biased manner, let alone enofrce that regulation?
A regulation of people knowledgeable in the field would be formed to regulate.
For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.
<snip>
You honestly believe that's the only thing keeping society together? That without it your neighbor will come in and ransack your house? Most crime is committed out of desperation, and violent crime is almost always between people who knew each other.
The ratio of sociopaths to 'normal' people, for lack of a better word, is about 1:25. Now, sociopathy is not the same as psychopathy - a sociopath is not necessarily interested in harming you - but it means that every 25th person you meet will not have any empathy for you and will not be interested in a pact of non-aggression. In fact, they may well be very interested in using such a pact to leverage an unfair advantage over you.
This problem is amplified by the fact that distribution of force - whether that force be weapons possession, manpower, land ownership, vehicle ownership or some other factor - is usually quite patchy, that people can be very easily influenced by sociopaths and that even 'normal' people tend to have a tendency to get into violent disagreements when their ideologies clash.
This is exactly how gangs emerge and the foundation for second-class citizenship is laid down: people who are more passive and try to get by within the framework of non-aggression are abused by those not interested in that compact, and the victims of abuse often form their own sub-compacts with whomever possesses (or is perceived to possess) significant force to prevent being victimized in the future. People who don't participate in the gangs are then seen as easy pickings.
Only if you're looking for the exact same thing. Finding a new filament for the light bulb involved doing the same thing over and over with different materials.
Using a different material is something different.
Only if you're looking for the exact same thing. Finding a new filament for the light bulb involved doing the same thing over and over with different materials.
Using a different material is something different.
Seriously.
Using different things is, by definition, not doing the same thing over and over.
Like, the exact opposite, in fact.
It is doing something new over and over and expecting new results.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
Communities and exposure would enforce them.
Based on whose regulation? What scale are you talking about here? Why would a community that relies entirely on a specific industry for their livelihood be trusted to regulate that industry in an un-biased manner, let alone enofrce that regulation?
A regulation of people knowledgeable in the field would be formed to regulate.
What if those individuals aren't in the community, too busy doing other things or don't want to participate?
Well that's enough for today. TV time. Laterz yall.
Ha, really? Nice.
You should skip TV, and read a book on science.
But he's read a book.
It didn't teach him about science. And as we now know, doing the same thing, but changing something about that thing, is exactly the same as doing the first thing over and over.
in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
Why would businesses allow unions?
Businesses actually hired mercenaries to kill strikers, and instituted slavery in the form of debt bondage in this country just a few generations ago, as in there are people alive today whos parents were shot at by men their bosses hired to shoot at them
These are things that happened back when the federal government was weak in this country, along with child labor, share cropping, abusive monopolies
The worst abuses of human rights, the most terrible atrocities though? Those were sanctioned by entire communities. Lynching and murdering of people, atmospheres of racism leading to bombings.
You cannot have this crazy utopia as long as people of different faiths, backgrounds, economic and social statuses, etc, etc occupy the same piece of land. It would only work if you could seperate everyone together into like minded groups and build giant impassable walls segregating them. The best you can do is have a system like ours, which is certainly full of holes but is way better than virtually every system of human governance (and there is always a system of governance, if there is even one rule enforced by the community you have a system of governance) in human history.
We should strive to make it better not tear it down because we'll totally do better than those primitives thousands of years ago did (where government was the biggest guy with the biggest club deciding to have rape for dinner)
Well that's enough for today. TV time. Laterz yall.
I'm being completely serious when I say that you should try writing one good full explanation to one question next time you come in this thread. Right now you're just tossing off a bunch of easily rebuttable talking points. As it is you're basically putting no effort into this, and you really need to try if you actually want to convince anyone here.
Posts
The part where you completely failed to explain how regulations would be applied or enforced. And you can't say "the same way they are now" because you're completely changing the context and framework that allow them to exist now.
These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.
There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.
So....
You get to decide?
Communities and exposure would enforce them.
What makes you think democracy will be what your system ends up with when in practice?
The community gets to.
Do you have any experience with unions? Because unions are constantly vying for each other's territory. In the construction industry there are bizarre disputes over things like whether the metal workers union or the roofing union gets to put on metal roofing.
There isn't, people get to decide how they want to live. They could form a representative constitutional republic if they wanted to, one that doesn't have a monopoly on force and violence and is voluntary.
Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.
Holy Moley.
So....
Tyranny of the majority?
I am familiar with unions, they do have problems and some of them are just evil.
You do realize that expecting every single member of the workforce to join one union (and a radical one in both organization and ideology at that) is a bit overoptimistic, yes?
Also, if the IWW or any similar union did become that powerful society would in short order no longer be capitalist.
But... you... I...
I need to be alone for a little while.
There's also precedent and the final decision is the arbitrator or arbitrators or the jurors.
Yep! So "Everyone in a union" doesn't solve jack. Not to mention that they're basically mini-governments. Union dues are taxes.
2) I'm okay with that.
Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.
Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.
Possible, but extremely difficult.
I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.
No it isn't.
You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.
Only if you're looking for the exact same thing. Finding a new filament for the light bulb involved doing the same thing over and over with different materials.
aka doing the same thing.
Based on whose regulation? What scale are you talking about here? Why would a community that relies entirely on a specific industry for their livelihood be trusted to regulate that industry in an un-biased manner, let alone enofrce that regulation?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
........yeah. I think I've seen enough here.
Union organizers gotta eat.
A regulation of people knowledgeable in the field would be formed to regulate.
The ratio of sociopaths to 'normal' people, for lack of a better word, is about 1:25. Now, sociopathy is not the same as psychopathy - a sociopath is not necessarily interested in harming you - but it means that every 25th person you meet will not have any empathy for you and will not be interested in a pact of non-aggression. In fact, they may well be very interested in using such a pact to leverage an unfair advantage over you.
This problem is amplified by the fact that distribution of force - whether that force be weapons possession, manpower, land ownership, vehicle ownership or some other factor - is usually quite patchy, that people can be very easily influenced by sociopaths and that even 'normal' people tend to have a tendency to get into violent disagreements when their ideologies clash.
This is exactly how gangs emerge and the foundation for second-class citizenship is laid down: people who are more passive and try to get by within the framework of non-aggression are abused by those not interested in that compact, and the victims of abuse often form their own sub-compacts with whomever possesses (or is perceived to possess) significant force to prevent being victimized in the future. People who don't participate in the gangs are then seen as easy pickings.
Using a different material is something different.
Seriously.
Using different things is, by definition, not doing the same thing over and over.
Like, the exact opposite, in fact.
It is doing something new over and over and expecting new results.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
What if those individuals aren't in the community, too busy doing other things or don't want to participate?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Ha, really? Nice.
You should skip TV, and read a book on science.
But he's read a book.
It didn't teach him about science. And as we now know, doing the same thing, but changing something about that thing, is exactly the same as doing the first thing over and over.
Businesses actually hired mercenaries to kill strikers, and instituted slavery in the form of debt bondage in this country just a few generations ago, as in there are people alive today whos parents were shot at by men their bosses hired to shoot at them
These are things that happened back when the federal government was weak in this country, along with child labor, share cropping, abusive monopolies
The worst abuses of human rights, the most terrible atrocities though? Those were sanctioned by entire communities. Lynching and murdering of people, atmospheres of racism leading to bombings.
You cannot have this crazy utopia as long as people of different faiths, backgrounds, economic and social statuses, etc, etc occupy the same piece of land. It would only work if you could seperate everyone together into like minded groups and build giant impassable walls segregating them. The best you can do is have a system like ours, which is certainly full of holes but is way better than virtually every system of human governance (and there is always a system of governance, if there is even one rule enforced by the community you have a system of governance) in human history.
We should strive to make it better not tear it down because we'll totally do better than those primitives thousands of years ago did (where government was the biggest guy with the biggest club deciding to have rape for dinner)
I'm being completely serious when I say that you should try writing one good full explanation to one question next time you come in this thread. Right now you're just tossing off a bunch of easily rebuttable talking points. As it is you're basically putting no effort into this, and you really need to try if you actually want to convince anyone here.