So you’re denying that there have been and still are cultures that don’t have any system of property? wat
It’s pretty obvious I’m not if you read the last sentence. wat
hurp, then how is what i said a load of rubbish? i didn’t say anything about toddlers
Because, like I said, people start off with personal values of possessions. It’s the culture they’re in that changes that, and it doesn’t tend to do it so well.
Actually, no. There were some cultures like Natives Americans’ and some African tribes that worked like that, but they[the cultures]'re pretty much all extinct.
I may be wrong, but I think at least the Bushmen in Africa still have no system of ownership. I probably a lot of primitive tribes.
But eh, I may be wrong.
Also, Soup, just because a small child does something doesn’t mean it will by definition act the same way when it’s grown up, disregarding cultural influence.
Okay, so you’re not even sure if there’s a group of people out there that do that. How do you propose we’d go about stopping people from wanting possessions now ingrained in pretty much every society?
I don’t think I ever mentioned anything about stopping people from anything, but I can’t remember and I cba to look back.
So I recede.
Is it incorrect to defineanarchy as a world of those who govern by their own conscience?
I’m asking how you’d propose to move from a capitalist society to an anarchist one, since the previous thread of debate couldn’t go anywhere.
In principle, I’m an anarchist. Nobody other than myself should decide what I should and should not do.
However, I am perfectly aware that a society (such as the ones we have today) cannot work with anarchistic principles, and I have an entirely different viewpoint as to how a society should be run.
Sure, if we all started living like the north american indians did it’d be pretty chill, but I don’t see that happening, and I’m not sure their lifestyle would work with almost 7 billion people.
It’s impossible to peacefully move from our modern societies to anarchist ones.
I have no idea.
Objectivism is much like anarchism in several ways. Objectivists believe that the only governement that would be in a perfect society is a judicial branch, a military branch, and a local protection branch. Like the modern governement of the United States, all three branches will ensure that the others do not become overpowered. The only laws that would be passed in that governemnt would be to protect individual rights, such as property and safety, without restricting Capitalism.
What if “Capitalism” restricts individual rights such as property and safety?
You’re probably wondering if the classic “Company Takes Over The World” scenario occurs, right? Example being, if Joe Smith makes Smith & Co. which becomes the greatest business known to man, and then uses his power to, say, steal property and then bribe authorities, then there are two things that can happen.
-The governement can, and should, take direct action against this single corporation not because it’s grown too large, but because it is forming into a corrupt governement.
If the governement does NOT take action, then the citizens will most likely rebel and take action themselves in a civilized manner.
What if I’m not referencing “Company Takes Over The World”? What if some small business restricts individual rights such as property and safety?
For example: Small Business builds Widget. You bring Widget home because it does something you want. Widget oftentimes explodes, destroying property and/or maiming someone. This is not a result of negligent handling of Widget but a legitimate problem in the manufacture of Widget.
Should a government be there to protect property and safety before Widget goes to market and there to protect property and safety should Widget make it through to market in the form of lawsuits against said company?
Ah, I see what you mean.
In that case, it is common sense that people would no longer wish to buy the product, in this case, ‘Widget,’ and the company would become bankrupt. However, people would still be able to file lawsuits because they have had their property and/or body hurt in some way because of a careless individual or group of individuals.
most likely, but not likely at all if it doesn’t affect them personally
So, basically, the system we have now.
No, because the system we have now is more of a ‘mixed economy’ than a Capitalistic society, and also has laws taken from other economic-political ideas, i.e. taxes. (In an Objectivist country, paying taxes would be optional).
Also, can we please continue this in my thread? I feel as if I’m hijaking this one.