RE: My problem with Communism
Would you say that everything that does not require force a good idea? On the contrary, sometimes good ideas do require force because the powers in control may not want the good idea to manifest.
That becomes a dangerous slippery slope. I contend if it is a good idea it does not require force. I didn't say that meant it would take effect instantaneously because it is a good idea.
However, as soon as you resort to force it is YOU with your perceptions of the world deciding it was a good idea and thus you decide you must apply force to make it happen. What if you were wrong due to your limited knowledge and it was NOT a good idea? Yet you chose to force it into existence.
The problem is even madmen to think their ideas are good ones.
Thus the saying "good ideas do not require force" is more that if they are truly good you likely will not have trouble convincing people to go along with them, and even if it takes time they likely could come to be.
As soon as we resort to FORCE we are deeming us as RIGHT and thus the one who should be able to make the RULES. So begins every dictatorship.
If we take force out of the equation we remove that possibility. Because, whether a lot of people like to admit it or not (not meaning you) each of us is very limited in our knowledge, and we are wrong about a lot of things.
Thus, using force could be a very bad thing backing a WRONG idea simply because we thought it was RIGHT.
I completely agree with you about people having a limited knowledge on topics that we find ourselves backing. And based off of the different moral compasses that guide us, right and wrong could be on the opposite of the spectrum of your counterparts.
While I am not a person who promotes the use of violence to get a point across, I would have to say force does not have to be violent. Just persistence or an aggressive stance could be the force factor.
To believe that people will follow a plan because it is a good idea would be assuming that all people will make the logical decision, which has been proven in numerous fields(economics for one) to not be the case. People will often make choices that are illogical. Thus, people are logically illogical decision makers and this is why I believe that some type of force may have to be implemented for change. Like you said it will not be done instantly but something has to be the catalyst to switch the energy of change or progression from potential energy to kinetic energy. While the black and white of who is wrong and right will not be figured out until time tells, staying in a unpleasant situation because you are trying balance the scales can do just as much harm if not more than one who forces an agenda.
I appreciate your perspective and enjoyed reading your comment.
Likewise. :)
I think you missed the point, people realize that a cup is a great idea, they don't need anyone to convince them of it, they understand it, they see that sticking together is a great idea, it's evident, they recognize good ideas, great ideas, and adapt them, animals do this, everything does this. That is why ideas if they are great, if they are good, will not need you to convince them or argue it fro them, it will be evident. But I want to know, what idea would not be good or has not been good enough that only force will help it along?
Is democracy a good idea? Is freedom of speech a good idea? Is decentralized banking a good idea? Are basic human rights a good idea? Is promotion by a merit based system a good idea rather than a nepotist system?
If you think about the history of countries all over the world and the steps that were taken to remove royalty and other forms governments that had dynasties of family lines you see the trend of force. While there will always be good ideas that most people can agree on being good ideas, there will always be resistance that wants to hold the common good back for a larger gain for a smaller group of people.
Rights and changes have to be fought for. As long as you think that all you have to do is show people how good an idea is and wait and eventually everyone will see that it is the way to go, then all you will be doing is waiting. A catalyst must be created to push people forward. You can blame cognitive dissonance or whatever, but the fact of the matter is no good idea will be put into play without force because it will always disrupt something else that is going on in another lifestyle.
Do me a favor and give me some examples of good ideas that did not require force to implement.
You tell me in what context and it should be glaringly obvious if democracy in the context of government is a good idea because democracy in the context of an organization of people who consented to follow what they vote for is obviously a great idea.
Again, freedom of speech in the context of you have sole authority over your body is a great idea, a next step from self ownership, a great idea.
Is freedom of speech in the context of "protected" through force and extortion a great idea or just a bullshit privilege?
We'd have to understand what you mean by both those words.
Again you'd have to define exactly what that means, what that entails, it must have a WHY and a HOW, or it's not very much a good idea..
Again you believe that these things are one thing, but until you define them I can argue that both those things are irrelevant in the context of good ideas.
And each revolution installed another tyrant, and nothing changed.
You changed one master for another. Nobody had to force math onto people. Nobody had to force anarchy onto people, there's 100 million people that live in Zomia for longer than any civilization that have practiced anarchy and continue to this day, they have a great idea, nobody had to be forced.
For the record math has been forced on people, one example would be Peter the Great forcing the nobles to learn math, science, and other specific subjects to keep their positions.
And ok, we can specify each topic down to the exact meaning I am talking about, but it would then only allow for specific holes to be picked at in the idea. How can one debate if basic human rights are a good idea? Like I said everything is somehow going to impact another's lifestyle and it will be viewed as change, change is not normally an easy thing for people to come to terms with. You say that Zomia has lives in anarchy, but I am positive that everyone there did not just think hey, this is a good idea, we should all do this. I'm sure people pushed agendas and aggressively pursued the goal of making anarchy their system. One ruler will take over another ruler but the following is usually a more popular ruler that the people can relate to more than the previous.
I thought I used pretty simple examples, but it seems that they were to broad for you to give thorough answers.
Because people are forced to have a great idea doesn't make it right. Forcing people to do things is wrong.
Nobody forced math on people, people saw the beauty of math, and ran with it, but yes, some did not care for math, and having it forced on them won't implement or make them use a cup like math, you've simply forced people.
What makes it wrong, to be specific if you can?
Because we allow for specific holes to be picked at in the idea? Well that sounds like a scam, let's not talk about this great idea because it will allow for specific things to be picked at it
Because they aren't defined that's how, I simply asked you to defined, and we can see exactly how it can be debated and why.
And, so? That means it's ok to force people? Force people to learn, sounds like reasonable, if there was a world where forcing people or initiating force is ok. Yeah, that's what you're arguing, it's ok to do it for learning, or implementing a great idea, your great idea.
I'm sure you are wrong, I'm sure that people there have resisted in numerous ways people taking power, in there the individual is first, not the community, and the individual doesn't believe in some are allowed to do what some are not allowed to do, more than that, leaders, from what I understand, haven't been through force or have more authority than an individual, any individual, nobody forces people to comply to their mandates, there is still justice but it isn't monopolized. They have done this for ever, because they wanted this, because they didn't want RULERS.
I broke down how some of those ideas are great when force is not used, and not great ideas at all if force is used, and then asked to define this other ideas that would be helped if we forced people to be great.
You admitted that defining those terms will make them susceptible to being seen as not so great, like I pointed out, in the context of force.
This is so funny to me because I feel like I'm debating myself. So I feel as if I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said before I am not really about the use of violence or extreme force. I believe in leading by example and letting the pack follow. I also believe that if you force something on a person, although they may pick up the idea you forced for a while, they will ultimately go back to their original routine when the influence decreases. However, if you use a small amount of force to start the spark of interest..then at that point you will achieve a greater success rate of conversion. Sometimes people have to be forced to look at something or they would have never looked at it at all. Many opportunities are missed because people don't take the extra step to be persistent but not relentless.
But I do not believe in a society where one puts themselves over the community and still "doesn't believe in some are allowed to do what some are not allowed to do." How can I put myself above the community but still say that I care about what everyone else is allowed to do. With that mindset why would you care what anyone in the community did? Or is it just a battle of "well, he did it too" in the the culture.
The Zomia State does not have a written language and there is still division among the people and it is not a happy utopia that you are, to me, describing. From what I researched, it seems that the social building practices and social ties that the community imposes on it's people is what keeps the structure. In one article I read it stated that, "kinship systems are based on overlapping and redundant relationships that create a strong social network and limit the formalization of power." I will concede that these people did leave many different areas to escape other forms of government, but I still believe they are just follow another rule system that forces them to limit power. In my opinion that is just power being used form a different angle. And division is still present in these lands. The people that do the farming in the valleys consider the people in the mountains, of the already treacherous lands, as primitive and living ancestors.
Nothing is perfect, but it is the method of weighing pros and cons that helps the decision making process. If one does not have goal, then what is one living for? Some systems are more goal oriented and others are made for those who want to simply exist. If you think about it, how many times a day do you have to force yourself to do something because you would rather be doing something that's unproductive or against what you had planned for the day?