Experiments with toddlers show that helping others and cooperating is our nature. But Children pick up behaviors of adults they are exposed to ,and very easily. Greedy asshole parents will raise their children accordingly.
Simple example the law "do not steel" is needed in our capitalist society, because some people sometimes have to steel. Now, if you remove the need to steel or the reason that create the need to steel, there is no reasons to have a rule anymore.
there used to be communities where people never locked their doors because they could be sure their neighbors are not breaking in. Many communities were like this until very recently, in the west, in Asia, everywhere. I guess this is hard to imagine for many of the younger people today.
The "new kind of man" of our times is the empty hearted, uprooted city dweller, living alone in a crowd, eternally searching for an identity, a slave to consumerism and obsessed with proving their value to absolute strangers. This kind of man and woman has never existed before,at least not to this extent.
If they conquer they will have law. This only exists with state. State has being around us for long and this wasn't reason to avoid wars. Look what is happening now around the world.
How does state guarantee such existence? Through sheer force right? And WHEN they do guarantee. Because you can see many cases of people breaking into private properties and stolen for them while State giving them rights to it.
Maybe I wasn't precise enough, I wasn't talking about individuals living on deserted islands, I did mean societies. In a self sufficient society with relatively flat hierarchy there are no "jobs" in the modern sense
I'm the hope who brought the guy living on deserted island as the only way a single person can live auto sufficient. If you want more than that you will need the help of others and make a society like Amish.
I'm not fully following your idea of self sufficient society with relatively flat hierachy where there would be no jobs? Job is just a word the key thing here is that people have to work to live or someone/something has to work for them.
When a country's executive explains that it is normal and necessary to starve and prevent medical care to the population of another nation, then NO, the argument of said countries that the organization trying to feed and take care of the population is completely corrupted is NOT credible you genocide denier.
What is being defendend is that UN stops to suppling Hamas because all of their supplies are going to Hamas and I showed the video about Palestians civillians claiming that.
Why unorganized individuals would conqueror others?
They need to have laws for that. A guide, something to follow. We are the rules and they are the slaves. We have to order and they to obey. Something like that. Governament you know?
Hm no, not really as I'm an antifascist myself (just not the kind who use violence). Never heard about groups being against freespeech as being against freespeech would instantly put you into the authoritarian/far right/fascist territory.
Jesus, I never said all of them. There's a jubile interview of an antifascist militant saying free speech is just a tool for hate speech. Nobody is saying that's what you believe. But there are some of them that don't believe in it.
I'm the hope who brought the guy living on deserted island as the only way a single person can live auto sufficient. If you want more than that you will need the help of others and make a society like Amish.
I'm not fully following your idea of self sufficient society with relatively flat hierachy where there would be no jobs? Job is just a word the key thing here is that people have to work to live or someone/something has to work for them.
A job in the modern sense has nothing to do with working for a living. Most people don't get what they deserve for all the work they do because random rich people make up nonsense like low wages while paying themselves unwieldy sums of money for doing absolutely nothing. Today nobody lives of their own hands ' work
A good example of what c4n brought up would be the gas crisis we had here in Germany following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Politicians decided to sanction the living excrements out of Russia because "Western values" and whatnot and at the same time they told the citizens to turn down the heating in winter and to freeze for democracy.🤣 Meanwhile they pay themselves so much money that they could have easily prevented the rising gas prices from affecting those with the least financial means.
I'm not a fan of consequentialist arguments tbh. I'm just trying to show to Herrera that the state, by it's coercive nature, its the only factor that conceptually guarantees rights (including obviously private property right).
No mate. Most leftist are highly educated people since most of them follow sciences and researches. Lower class activist are people who know a LOT about society.
What you don't understand is that its the right and your side that is uneducated and ignorant about the world and reality. A simple example is this one: Rightist follow the concept of meritocracy without even understanding that this concept was documented as simply inefficient by social sciences.
And when leftist points that out, those people reject this knowledge by saying that social sciences are full of leftist bias. In short, they can't learn because they think the knowledge is against them.
Therefore, they stay ignorant about the reality world and human behaviors.
Liberal are entry rightist, libertarian are a bit more rightist than that. Not really conservative but not liberal either. Believing in a system when you should have the liberty to do what you want is believing in a system where you freedom can override the ones and the rights of others. Its completely opposed to leftism but its the logical sequel of liberalism.
Liberalism: An ideology that promotes the protection of individual rights, equality of opportunity, and autonomy against threats from both the state and private actors (including businesses). Liberalism holds that the role of government is to protect and promote individual rights, equality, and autonomy.
Libertarianism: An ideology that promotes individual liberty (i.e., freedom and autonomy) as its central concern. Libertarianism holds that the role of government is only to protect individual liberty.
You consider yourself a simple leftist (a woke actually) and everything that is described here for liberalism fits you. So you are a liberal, woke, leftist and they are all the same.
No. I just proved you that work hours where somewhat better in the past. In reality somethings were better in the past. For example, in hunter gatherer societies, there was probably no such thing as patriarchy and ressources where divided ethically and equally. There was also more liberty and less gender pressure on women as they were also hunter just like men.
This is just an example. Because we are in the future doesn't mean that we will essentially progress toward more progress.
You just failed to proof actually. And now you are just guessing about patriarchy... I will have to ask you what is patriarchy for you because I'm pretty sure it is from HUMANITY birth that MEN are the LEADER and WOMAN are the ones who care for children. Since beginning MEN will fight and die to protect WOMEN and CHILDREN. What is gender pressure for you? There was more liberty in what means? Liberty to kill? R@p&? By the way I don't know why this last word is more sensitive then kill in our society...
For once you are right, I took very little care in checking the source and the informations provided in the article were biased and missleading. But what you don't understand is that those hours if - granted - missrepresented by the article were in fact a lot less invasive than what we have here. Because what you forget to add is all the hours of domestic chores that were added in that count but not added the the count of the average american working hours. In reality, we do a LOT more that just 42.3 hours workweek.
This doesn't really change my point and my previous one. Things were not worse in the past. We can still take lesson from the past (as long as we do a good job at it) and future is not necessaraly syonymous of progress.
Not once this is the standard for me. I'm rarely wrong unless inside your crazy mind.
If you check the part I didn't quote in my response you will see the author you chose also decided to deny a lot of tasks from their work hours that could be exactly our home tasks. And you are also forgetting that there was no vacation for them. They didn't had retirement. They didn't had savings to keep them safe if they injured etc. We live way better now. We live in a world food controlled by us. Pretty much 99% of the activists we do are under controlled environments without much risks of death. We can estimate how much of food we are producing etc. To say we lived better in the past in absurd and science denial (who would guess). We can only have 8 bi people in the world now because our lifes are much better. We can live over 100 years because our lifes are much better.
Nope. Technology. What better system and redistribution of resources we would have compared to a world with way less population and way more wild life?
Technology allowed us to be more productive. More production equal more resources for its people. Equal less people dying. Equal population growth. Therefore reducing once again the ratio of resource/population until further technology allows us the improve once again and be more productive.
Not so long ago scientists were discussing about a huge global starvation because our population were getting so big that we wouldn't be able to feed everyone. Then technology kicked in to save us all.
AI are literally stealing people works right now. Sometimes even literally (for artists). So yes, we F*xking NEED to regulate AI and prohibit unethical usage. Not regulating AI is accepting unethical practices. The development of AI doesn't mean that we must let it lose without regulation Einstein.
No. AI is FREEING people to do other things. Just like any technology kills some works and tons of others dies. AI is here to improve productivity not to steal work. If because of AI one artist can do the work for let's say 10. Now those 9 other artists can also use AI to do more works. And that's how it works.
So what we get from this? Let's say the same artists will remain being paid the same, we will have more work done therefore they are not cheaper. And this will continue as technology improves until technology can do all by itself and everything will be free for us. Maybe it is an Utopia? But it is the way we must follow. There is no deny of it being cheaper.
And what people like you who are soo uneducated in economics doesn't understand is that you only have to work because other human being does too. If AI take all the jobs of the work we don't have a reason to work at all and we will be free to do whatever we want.
I highly recommend for you to watch the Zeitgeist series of movies. In the 2nd and 3rd movie if I remember correctly they talk about the Venus Project and says more about what I'm talking about technology. Politicians doesn't solve problems. Only technology does. People left the farms, country side to go to the cities because it was better to work 14/16h in factories than living where they were.
Wrong. The best system will be based on solidarity. Simply because that what the human species is, a social specie. If you want freedom, go in a sahara oasis an try to create your own society there, but careful, you won't go far on your own.
You already saying that human species is a social specie. Just give them freedom and they will be solidary with each other. You can't be that hypocrite now.
Wrong. Its not about capitalist being hearthless or inhuman. Its about capitalist and liberal acting on their own interest. Billionnaire don't donate because they want to help people first. Billionnaire donate because its benefit them on taxes. If Billionnaire were really acting for others, they would donate and redistribute the quasi totality of their wealth.
A world where Billionaires and millionnaire exist while people can't eat or have a roof, is not a just, good or ethical world.
And what is the problem of helping others while getting benefits for yourself?
Billionaires already help us with their companies, investments, improving economy, technology etc. They directly helping us giving away their money is just a plus they are already doing enough.
Then you are denying and promoting the denial of the existence of other people, which is not an opinion, but something that must be stopped. Sorry, but you will find us on your way mate.
No I'm not. What must be stopped is that crazyness of calling a man a woman. That's why people also are saying they are dogs now. Plants. And all the kind of bullshit.
If they were women they wouldn't be transwomen. Period. There is no phobia in me. I have nothing against them. If anyone says something you disagree you already has to label them as haters. By the way there are even transwomen that agree with my statement I guess you would call them transphobics too right.
Not a liberal, I'm against liberal. But you are definitely a far rightist and a genocide denyer. (and ignorant about the reality of the world, but that comes with the package)
When you are denying the identity of other, you are promoting an idea that is undangering the lives of other people, ergo, you are overrriding their rights, existence and liberty.
I'm not denying nothing I just don't have to agree. So your idea is to force me to agree something I don't want and ignore my rights to disagree and call that freedom? You are pitiful.
I already explained to you that state don't fully avoid that. And we don't need state to use violence we can use violence ourselves. And it happens when state has the monopoly of the violence is that whoever controls it will rule over the population under that state. That's how dictatorships are born.
I'm not a fan of consequentialist arguments tbh. I'm just trying to show to Herrera that the state, by it's coercive nature, its the only factor that conceptually guarantees rights (including obviously private property right).
A job in the modern sense has nothing to do with working for a living. Most people don't get what they deserve for all the work they do because random rich people make up nonsense like low wages while paying themselves unwieldy sums of money for doing absolutely nothing. Today nobody lives of their own hands ' work
If you don't get paid enough in your work then you can go to the competition company or start your own business. What we are seeing is that people did were more paid than the work they did. Tech companies are keeping their layoffs while maintaing their productivity or even increasing. So they were paying more jobs than they should and bigger salary than they should. We all saw the youtubers showing their days into thos big techs. Most of them spent their days doing almost no work. The company provided them restaurants, play rooms etc and they kept entertained with that and barely worked to pay what the company were spending on them.
A good example of what c4n brought up would be the gas crisis we had here in Germany following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Politicians decided to sanction the living excrements out of Russia because "Western values" and whatnot and at the same time they told the citizens to turn down the heating in winter and to freeze for democracy.🤣 Meanwhile they pay themselves so much money that they could have easily prevented the rising gas prices from affecting those with the least financial means.
I swear, I'm not saying rich people definitely cannot be commies. But it goes to show that people have a binary brain when they say big corps are commies.
Most of the french people i have met online were left leaning. I wasnt going to say anything lol. As for billionaires,some of them do finance the left so they can protect or build a monopoly over the market. You know... increasing taxes and bureoucracy makes it harder for the guys on the bottom to compete with the guys on top of the food chain. The Brazilian firearms maker Taurus is a good example of this,they finance left wing politicians to enforce gun control. I assume the logic behind this to make is them the top contender for government purchases.
I might be called traditional right winger because I like capitalism , Entrepreneurship .
But I am also for free healthcare , equality for for lgbt rights . For some that sounds woke and left wing .
There is no proper definition for this . Left and right keeps changing over the years . Media plays strong role and has brainwashed the society .
Im not even against public health care and schooling,but these system in my nation are so corrupt and unreliable that i wish they werent a thing. It feels like a huuuuge waste of money. A scam to get taxes payers money basically.
C4N was talking about how jails will be no more in the future just because psychology will be so advanced. @Logiko some people are evil by their own choice.
I think both are wrong. I believe we learn to be moral by growing up and collecting experiences/lessons. You can literally teach kids to be terrorists and the opposite is also true. Now psychos are also a thing.
Thats why Max Weber defined the state as "legitimate monopoly on violence". The consequences of disobeying the rules (violence) is what guarantees the rights.
I think common law and enforcement of the law is better definition. Monopoly on violence isnt correct,self defense is a human right. Also,States can infringe fundamental rights and become illegitimate. The brazilian republic was created by a military coup. None asked for the Monarchy to be overthrow.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
