The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived. Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.
This is simply not true. Many animals form "pacts" and attack other opposing pacts. These pacts are often dominated by an individual that has power over the rest. Birds construct nests which they claim as property and defend from other birds.
We are natural animals, and anything we do can be considered part of nature in the same way birds build nests. So our societies, cities etc are in no way contradictory to nature. Declaring anything to be unnatural is not an argument.
A bird's nest is not property, it's possession. There are plenty of animals that recognize possession, but I've never heard a case for any that recognizes property.
Also, though it's not exactly relevant to the point you're contesting, it's arguable whether animals with social hierarchies express their authority in ways that are analogous to human society. "I eat first and get first choice of mates" is a pretty far cry from "I bomb you anonymously from hundreds of miles away because your appearance and location indicates you may hold thoughts I disagree with."
And I wasn't making an appeal to nature. I was heading off the argument that gets brought up every time that civilization as we know it is a product of human nature.
but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.
By freely distributing this information, you have possibly allowed another country to further increase their control and restrict your freedom. Whilst I believe in free speech etc, this is not such an unreasonable viewpoint to have, and it is not a one-sided debate.
So restrict Aaron Schwartz's freedom, or risk having your freedom diminished. Because external influences are something that any anarchy could not ignore.
For the record, I am trying to present situations where anarchy would not work. Where limiting someones freedom is simply not a choice and people will have to have their freedom limited in some form and someone is going to have to make that decision. There are quite a number of these situations.
On the other hand, a more educated populace is more resistant to propaganda and less likely to behave irrationally, so less likely to be dangerous. It doesn't seem to me like academia recognizes borders much these days anyway. International teams of scientists from all developed countries routinely collaborate on research, and students travel to different countries to study all the time.
Breastfeeding: Lots of babies are really, really bad at it. Like it can take half an hour to get them to latch on for the first couple weeks bad at it. It's really common.
And I am not one of those people who is elitist towards the upper forums. I think they're fine. They're definitely a separate thing from the lower forums. There's just some behavior up there that wouldn't survive down here because it would be seen as childish or bad taste, and serious discussions that do pop up tend to be less well-reasoned and moderate in tone.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1286102 times)