Society: A collective effort or a competition?

[K. A. Pital]

1- I am not advocating anarchy, but a society in which pure competitiveness is enforced (thus preventing the setting up of tribal governments).
2- The society wouldn't have to compete, as it would be under the protection of a larger more conventional society.

And who needs an anarchist reservation (possibly murderous, since you said something to the effect that only the people searching and killing a miscreant is a guarantee of compliance) inside his nation? Nobody. So that society won't be ever created. Ergo, no point in talking about it. At all.

[Carinthium]

1- I am not advocating anarchy, but a society in which pure competitiveness is enforced (thus preventing the setting up of tribal governments).
2- The society wouldn't have to compete, as it would be under the protection of a larger more conventional society.

And who needs an anarchist reservation (possibly murderous, since you said something to the effect that only the people searching and killing a miscreant is a guarantee of compliance) inside his nation? Nobody. So that society won't be ever created. Ergo, no point in talking about it. At all.

1- The whole argument has been about what the world ought to be. A model for what is desired can be worked towards to try and get as close as can be achieved, even if it is unrealistic. (And as drastic changes to the world can change what is achievable to a large extent, a model of the ideal is useful when such occurs)

Before you ask, I have not conceded the argument as to it's realism.

2- Actions have happened against the interests of rulers before, and rulers have been forced to accept policies they do not want before. Rulers and societal elites have even acted against their own interests in the name of ideology (resources devoted to the Holocaust, anti-Napoleonic sentiment, Qing attitudes towards the West for a long period, the refusal of Phillip of Spain to tolerate Protestantism in order to keep the Netherlands, the Holy Roman Emperors considering Italy of high strategic importance, the Crusades occuring when there were much closer places to conquer, etc).

[Temujin]

And plenty of people of ability have not, while many without ability have gotten a free ride to success due to what wealthy family they are born into.

The latter obviously exists, and is defensible with the argument that once somebody earns money they have the right to give it as a free gift to whom they will. If you give examples of the former I'll give my argument.

Are you saying I have to give you a list of "famous" people who have the ability but have failed? That's ridiculous! I could easily give personal anecdotes, but that wouldn't suffice. The fact is, you can have the raw talent and not be able to get the education; get the education but not be able to get the job that gives you the kind of experience you need; have doors closed to you because of your sex or the color of your skin; etc, etc, etc. Ability tends to take people further, but success is not guaranteed. A lot of factors are dependent upon pure chance.

But I know that fallacious argument, and it originally comes from the Protestant notion of success being tied to ones worthiness in the eyes of God. You'll succeed, and by what degree, if you deserve to succeed; if you don't succeed, then you didn't deserve to. Your just substituting in ability as libertarians are wont to do. As for your argument, I could give a shit less. It'll just be more of the same.

So it’s OK, or at least doesn’t matter if a person who has authority over someone treats that person like shit because they have social status instinct. No, people who behave in this fashion are sociopaths, narcissists, etc. And yes, they are twisted, as are those who apologize for them.

It is simply human nature- or haven't you seen the sheer number of feudal societies, amount of domestic violence, ecetra in history? That might make it bad- but it doesn't make it abnormal.

Yes it is human nature, but the times people live in effect how they behave. You grow up in a brutal society you'll probably going to accept it as a normal way to behave, and even may have to if you are to survive. Not to mention growing up and living under such harsh conditions can create mental disorders. Vlad Dracula has often been called a sociopathic monster, but looking at his childhood, it easy to how he could have turned into one even if he wasn't biologically predisposed to sociopathy. And I know what your going to say, those people could be abused too. Well, that would have to be a hell of a lot of abuse. But, it doesn't matter, because we live in a modern society where that kind of behavior is unacceptable, and is considered abnormal; and can even be treated if its a legitimate medical condition. I'm not wasting time splitting anymore hairs on this subject just because you don't like my terminology.

Snip
You have not refuted these points.

and

Snip
Typical libertarian justification for the rich and their greed.

I have already made it clear that it's acceptable for people to make more money if they work hard, and that there really is no limit to what a person’s wealth can be. But, since they have more, they can easily afford to give more back, and not whine about it and try to weasel out of it.

Splitting hairs and whining about who uses more resources or does it better, and than trying to use that to justify how much someone owes society is ridiculous. Poor people can’t afford to pay much, and by making them do so keeps them down and makes them a further drain (as you would call it) on society. Better to raise as many of them up to a higher standard of living (i.e., middle class) so they can buy more goods and pay more taxes.

The rich, who did make their money / are continuing to make their money because of the nature of the society they live in can not only afford to pay more money back, they are morally obligated to do so. Yet, the rich leech of the government, and than try to use their wealth to manipulate the system so they can get even more wealth.

While society is made up of individuals, and exists to serve individuals, it must do so collectively or it is failing at its purpose. People can not be going without essential services (food, shelter, education, health care, etc.) in a functional society. Everyone must have an opportunity to fully reach their potential, and not be hampered by the financial (or other) status of their birth; nor should they be provided an unfair advantage. And society can not properly do so if some members try to rig the game in their favor and take advantage of others. For you, society exists to serve certain individuals, only those you see as worthy.

Your entire argument is immoral and unethical. But of course you have no problem with this as morals and ethics mean nothing to Randroid Libertopians, so there’s no point arguing this further.

[Patrick Degan]

You flunk history. The Confederate armies would never have had the force necessary to capture Washington, which at that time was the most heavily fortified city on Earth. Appearances don't count for dick.

1- We both agree they could never have captured Washington.
2- Why shouldn't appearances be factored? The ability to control public perception is a military advantage in warfare, and (in the absence of major exaggeration of Confederate abilities taking place at the time) the perception shows some degree of military capabilities.

It shows no such thing. The only thing that demonstrates military capability is military success.

And as for how the Confederacy managed to last as long as it did, that speaks far more to the ineptness of the commanders of the Army of the Potomac than the Confederacy's capabilities. See George Brinton McClellan as example.

I concede insomuch as to my knowledge the commanders who defeated the Confederates were inept.

The ones who failed to defeat the Confederates were inept. The capable generals —Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas— crushed the Confederacy in fourteen months.

Additionally, large numbers of societies have sustained slavery throughout their history without collapsing.

You have not refuted this point.

Because it is a red herring. The issue is not the endurance of societies incorporating slavery as a componnent.

The barbarian conquests only occurred after the Western Roman Empire had degenerated to the point where it could not sustain itself militarily or politically. For the previous eight centuries in which that was not the case, the Romans crushed their tribal opposition

This is not completely true- Franks reached as far as Tarragona in the year 250. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Origins)

And were defeated and pushed back. Furthermore, your own source says they achieved their invasion at a time when the Western Empire was militarily weak. So the point stands.

When Temujin was conquering Mongolia he still qualified as a warlord. He may have been less and less of one as time went on, but the fact he could make such achievements as a warlord is still noteworthy.

Continually pointing to Temujin's early local conquests does not refute the point that his imperial successes became possible only in the context of a larger and more complex form of civil and military organisation.

And exactly how long will such a "society" last without what is, in effect, a foreign occupation force backing up its puppet ruling group? No, you don't get away with Moving the Goalposts around here, Skippy.

This argument was about whether such a society was possible over an extended period, not whether it was self-sustaining. Can you provide actual evidence of Moving the Goalposts?

You are providing that evidence, since you keep changing the terms of "success" and by dishonestly snipping off my challenge, which I will now repeat: demonstrate a competitive society on the terms you outline that has ever succeeded. Do you think you can manage that?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It doesn't matter if moral behaviour involves reasoning or not, or even if people can't help it- it is irrational. Given that nobody has ever estabished their moral first principles to be valid, it is fair to say that all moral reasoning is irrational.

The question you need to ask yourself is "where do these first principles originate?". If you think that for these first principles to be valid they need to be written into the fabric of the cosmos by God, then there is nothing more I can say to you. You will have demonstrated that you are a moron.

If you are able to acknowledge that moral principles originate inside the brain as part of our freakishly well-developed social intelligence-you know, part of that thing that defines us as humans, then you will realize that they need no further justification. They just are. The desire to not suffer and the acknowledgment that suffering (as distinct from pain BTW) is bad is a human universal. How that has applied has changed through human history. Humans evolved in tribes, and we have a tribal way of thinking. As population size and economic interconnectedness has grown, so has the "tribe" to which that principle applies. Logically of course it should extend toward all life with a primary consciousness, and we have been moving in that direction for some time.

You are making a circular argument- you have not demonstrated that ethical philosophy's point is to strive towards "the good" against the counter-posistion that it's purpose is to establish what "the good is" or the counter-posistion that it is irrational.

I do not need to distinguish between the first two because you set up a false dichotomy. There is no point in defining what good is unless you are going to work toward it. That would a waste of time. I have also shown that ethical reasoning is not irrational.

What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying that enjoying a drink of water or food is irrational. We need interaction with other humans just enough to survive.... or at least stay sane.

Europe in the relevant period was, in historical terms, an anomaly. Throughout thousands of years of history, feudal inequality has been generally accepted despite the massive status difference.

Because at that time, the difference was not actually massive. In terms of status, sure. but in terms of the length and quality of ones life, not so much. In fact, feudal society prior to the industrial revolution was not that raw of a deal for the peasant when you think about it. They get land to grow their crops or pursue their trade that is relatively safe. If the area is attacked they had some sort of fortification to flee to. The building of a castle spurred the growth of towns which became hubs for commerce.

I love how you use Tsarist russia as the general case for feudal societies when I have specified that the industrial revolution marked a turning point in the relationship between nobility and peasant. There were places in Russia that did not notice the end of the 14th century. To draw your conclusions from that and apply them to all feudal societies ever is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The conditions there were so bad, that it spawned a popular rebellion. Same thing with the french revolution. Not so much for the rest of europe save on smaller scales. Changes in technology and intellectual advances brought changes to the quality of life for the lower classes. They did not see the need to rebel. Elsewhere in the world, those advances never took place (until the europeans arrived). To call europe an anomaly is silly in that context.

A contract a peasant could not escape. A feudal lord could, abdicating or selling his lands. They could also evict the peasants (as was shown later).

If the lord abdicated or sold his lands, someone else would take over the peasant probably would not notice. If they get evicted, they take up residence under the walls of someone else's fortress. How often was that exercised though?

Society can work much as capitalism does in theory- people create trade goods to sell to each other in exchange for resources. The threat of being hunted down and murdered (individuals would do this for themselves) would provide a reasonable detterent against social cheating.

Not as a society gets large. A certain amount of stability is required to support a large population size. Continuing cycles of murder etc does not make for a stable society. Such a society when sufficiently large cannot function like that. Small ones can. Primitive tribal societies would use legitimate forms of ritual combat to settle such disputes.

There is a reason that no non-tribal civilization EVER has existed like this. Capitalism is a very natural and intuitive way to both cooperate and compete at the same time. Through it, you foster relationships, those in a firm cooperate toward mutual gain. What capitalism really consists of are sub-groups within a large society cooperating with eachother for their mutual advantage-bound together by the cooperation of the individuals within other social groups such as their neighborhoods, within their government apparatus etc. It is not purely competitive as you seem to think it is. As a matter of fact, it cannot exist without cooperation, and governments to keep it stable.

The reason a competitive society is more likely to suceed then a cooperative society is that humans have more incentives to be competitive- survival. Without a code of morality being taught, and without the issue of kin (this is admittedly a hole in the idea, but a smaller one then being forced to work for no incentives), it will be significantly easier for such a society (relative to creating a purely cooperative society) to exist.

Nice strawman. When have I been talking about anyone working with no incentives? A purely cooperative society does not have no incentives to work. By helping others, you help yourself. However I have laid out different reasons why such societies fail.

There was actually a person found unlucky enough to have lived by himself his whole life. He did manage to survive, demonstrating it is possible.

Every person who ever lived like this is invariably insane or otherwise broken inside. They may survive, but I fail to see how this supports your point.

1- Can the ordinary person really think so far as to talk about "what makes me human"?

Yes

2- The line of propaganda is easy (if dishonest). It will be claimed that neither a Left Wing society nor a Right Wing society can work due to the human brain "not working", and that the only way for any political ideal to be achieved is to modify people to make it possible. This won't work on intelligent people or religious, but both have been sidelined before.

And you think this is OK?

Think about what you are saying. For a society such as you envision to exist, it has to be made entirely of sociopaths. Wonderful.

This is a joke. People with no common ties, no operational code of morality, and put together in a situation in which survival is the imperative will divide into two groups: predators and prey. The strong take from the weak, then fight it out amongst themselves to wind up on top of the heap. The logical end for such a "society" is warlordism and slavery. Or starvation. In any case, the idea that such a state of affairs could even be loosely referred to as a society, much less the assertion that it could succeed, is ludicrous on its face.

I could not have said it better myself.

The Confederate States of America were a society. Warlord states are societies. Have you forgotten that?

The more likely result is starvation. With each out for themselves with no cooperation between them, no "strong" individual on their own can meet their own survival needs. Cooperation between said individuals would be forced... and eventually you get an actual society.

Warlord or quasi-warlord states can often succeed (although they usually transform into non-warlord states)- good examples are the barbarian conquests of the Western Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, and the rise of Mohammed. Their weakness is not that they are likely to be conquered (they are small, but in the absence of nationalism are conquered only as much as other smaller societies) but that they are too vulrnable to de-warlordising.

I accept your concession.

[K. A. Pital]

1- I am not advocating anarchy, but a society in which pure competitiveness is enforced (thus preventing the setting up of tribal governments).
2- The society wouldn't have to compete, as it would be under the protection of a larger more conventional society.

And who needs an anarchist reservation (possibly murderous, since you said something to the effect that only the people searching and killing a miscreant is a guarantee of compliance) inside his nation? Nobody. So that society won't be ever created. Ergo, no point in talking about it. At all.

1- The whole argument has been about what the world ought to be. A model for what is desired can be worked towards to try and get as close as can be achieved, even if it is unrealistic. (And as drastic changes to the world can change what is achievable to a large extent, a model of the ideal is useful when such occurs)

If such an outcome is desireable. But it's not, for the majority of people, just like the Stone Age is not a desireable time to live in for most people. Therefore, it's not only an ideal which can't be implemented, but it's an ideal which has no reasons to be implemented at all. I'm not sure this debate has any real purpose to it either.