I am now a double drop-out

[HoreTore]

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

[Andres]

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

[HoreTore]

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

[Andres]

So.... You consider nature to be absurd, then?

Can't you then say that it's absurd to be forced to eat?

That's not what I said HoreTore. You are missing my point. The existence of a ruling class isn't necessarily absurd in itself. But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

That's why the idea of a social contract is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment. In reality, it doesn't make sense.

[Montmorency]

But it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else. There is no agreement, we undergo the dominance.

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

A contract, implies an agreement from all parties involved. To agree, you need to have a free will. If you are dominated, you no longer have a free will and thus, you can not agree.

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

[Andres]

Then again, there is significant socialization toward an ideal of some overarching sociopolitical authority, at least in Western Europe.

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

What happens if neither the dominator nor the dominated have "free will"?

That's what I fear. The dominant members can't deny their own nature. They are like that, so they act like that.

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

[Montmorency]

for those indeed capable of living without government.

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

[Andres]

If these are living with others "incapable of living without government", then I would argue that the former are indeed themselves incapable of living without government. Or are we talking about some sort of utopian society composed only of such high-class (in the other sense) individuals that they can all coexist in perfect cooperation and harmony? Cuz that sounds like communism.

I am indeed talking about some sort of utopian society. Humanity is not ready yet for communism. If we apply communism now, the means of production will be controlled by a bureaucracy that will inevitably become corrupt instead of them now being controlled by capitalist pigs.

The people in power are the problem. They are by definition selfish and greedy bastards making the rest of us miserable.

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

It's good enough that they work in some proportion toward an interest other than self-interest. Of course, that leads to problems concerning empathy, but more importantly the status of the definition of the 'common interest'.

So far, the proporition of self-interest has always been way larger than the other proportion. The ruler should be satisfied with his share, not more than that. Since humans aren't capable of being that altruistic, we'll continue to exist in our current miserable state of greedy and selfish bastards ruling us.

[Montmorency]

How can one speak of a "social contract"?

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

The ruler should be satisfied with his share

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

[Andres]

Harking to my previous point on socialization: if some large proportion 'genuinely believes' in a social contract, doesn't it then exist by that virtue? Does it only count if they grow up in a Troglodytic society and then make an informed choice to be ruled, after first having experienced life not being ruled?

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

If the majority believes in it, then they are misguided or don't truly understand what they are believing in. They should urgently read my posts in this thread to see the light

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

Harking back to the other point on definition of interest: what constitutes one's share, and who decides? Isn't it "absurd" to posit that if humans were 'perfect' they would just know what a 'fair share' is?

One thing's for sure: as long as there is a ruling class, the shares won't be fair.

When you enter the state in which there is no more dominance and thus no greed and selfishness, the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

[Montmorency]

Also, believing in something doesn't automatically means it exists.

As in, a social contract is something that can only exist by the virtue of being believed in.

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Whether misguided or not, there is as I said a popular sense of innate authority. That does mitigate the exercise of power or coercion.

the shares will become fair, since everybody will only take what they need instead of piling up.

But can and could and would people accurately assess what their share should fairly be, assuming that it's possible?

Would everyone else agree with each other's assessment?

Is undergoing power aka being ruled necessary to make progress?

Is oppression a necessary tool to make society/humanity move forward and become more advanced?

Well, I'm not sure about this whole "progress" and "advancement" business, unless it includes the wholesale replacement of humanity.

I do think it's necessary for the maintenance of the current world-system and our current (relatively-high) standards of living - otherwise, we'd all just return to small-scale agricultural communalism, and the cycle would turn all over again.

[Montmorency]

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

[Andres]

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

Authority?

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

Also, the government is just one body holding power. All power is not exclusively in the hands of governments, that would be a gross misconception. There are plently of other players holding several degrees of power. Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

[Montmorency]

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

[Ironside]

I'm a year into an English literature course and i still dont know what post modernism is.

The shortest version: It's to challenge your preconceptions. What is art? Does it change on context? (Yes). In literature: Deconstruction, Meta concepts, etc are port-modernism.

Since it's oldish most of the good stuff coming from that has been mined out already.

The dominant one might the most capable, but that doesn't mean she always acts in everybody's best interest.

Given our selfish nature, the dominant one will make sure to have the most comfortable live, at the expense of the other members of the group.

From the perspective of the individual, it is absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else, since that somebody else will serve his own self-interest, which isn't your self-interest.

Those who find it absurd to agree to be ruled by somebody else is called "my way or the highway" people. Try getting 3-4 of these to cooperate. Even most people who prefer to rule can accept getting ruled depending on the circumstances. It's an essential skill for a cooperative species.

Most of people prefer to be ruled because it's easier. Some never wants to rule, some only takes over a power vacuum or only rules when it interests them. The social contract basically boils down to what those who prefer to be ruled can accept, comparing to either being in power or trying to ursurp the power.

Rule 3 people and they won't accept that you don't do any work outside the planning. Rule 1000 people and most of them will accept that delegation.

Pay your taxes or try to rebel and survive the cutthroat hell if the rebellion is won.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why is it that those who campaign against the elites and ruling class act so much like those they claim to hate?

Skewing the public as ignorant, deluded individuals who don't realize the wool has been pulled over them and the ruling class as intellectual ubermench is the height of elitist.

It's impossible for someone to rationalize that to live under a democratic government with a fair share of flaws is better than my deconstructed-reconstructed enlightened society, they must all be stupid and don't understand the concept of liberty.