RE: Is there an introduction?
(15-04-2013 08:49 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:
(15-04-2013 10:34 AM)TheAmazingAustralopithecus Wrote: A biker's bar...awesome . As for my day, it's been rather boring. Had my hair cut...against my will. I'm 17 yet my mum thinks she owns my hair ;l. (I just realised this may even relate to your point about family hierarchy though I'm sure this event is quite harmless xD).
I have far too many books to read; I have a stack of them I've bought over the past couple of years. At least I can be assured my reading list is going to be filled for a while.
I understand your point about governments. The policeman analogy was a very good one...though I just thought of one thing. Let's say someone is being stalked, or harassed, or abused in secret. There can't be a Good Samaritan here, nobody to chase the mugger. However, police and other government services provide help and relief for those in distress in these situations. So I think there is still something to be said for services, and I think it's difficult to provide such important services without a state.
And yes, governments may just be group of people. But in a fair democracy (hard though they are to come by) they are a group of people chosen by everyone else, and are responsible to their electorate and voters. So I think government isn't just taking power away from the people; it is giving power to them in a practical way. It also, as I said, provides important services which would be difficult to provide without a state.
Of course, I realize governments and policemen abuse their power. But they are, once more, responsible for these things; naturally there was disgust at the torture scandal, naturally corrupt politicians and policemen are fired and disciplined.
However, I think the debate here is indeed moot. It's just a difference in morality and definition, so we could go back and forth forever but we'd be saying the same thing at this point.
As for Saddam Hussein, that is a good solution. Though getting into a high security country to hunt down a man who commands an entire nation and has an army and has no qualms about doing anything to anyone who goes against him is perhaps a slightly difficult thing to do. I agree though that it would have been a nice solution. However, the faithful would still have torn the country apart. In the end, maybe there was no truly good outcome of any course of action in this situation.
Your explanation though of hierarchy actually got quite close to me...I remember, little over a year ago, being terrified (and I mean really quite scared) of a teacher at my school. I'd never done anything wrong and was, without being arrogant, one of her best students. Yet she was a terrifying woman when angry. You just didn't want to be on the receiving end. And, yet, she was a really good teacher too in many ways; despite this latter claim though, I'm glad I don't have to suffer that class anymore. This sounds incredibly stupid and childish now, not to mention, embarrassing. Haha.
On the other hand, I also experienced a very good experience in school. My history teacher for most of my time was a great guy, funny and a good teacher. I had one awkward experience with him though; a few years ago, I took the God Delusion into the church service being held in our assembly hall. It was a pretty stupid protest, I now realise, and I look back on it with a cringe. (I had, though, done the same once before and got a response from the maths teachers consisting of laughter for the most part.) However, my history teacher took the book off me, not knowing the title, and then discussed it with me after. He was an atheist and all, but felt that this wasn't necessary etc etc etc. So though I think it was incredibly stupid and a very bad, embarrassing protest in many ways I still got annoyed at him. Apparently, though, he's recounted it to his new history class and talks about me as if I have a cause apparently. So at least, despite leaving school, I'm not forgotten xD.
I veered off topic there, but my point was that I empathise entirely with your criticism of hierarchy. However, it doesn't mean that teachers and schools and education and family can't be liberating and good for life. But now I feel slightly as if I've been living somewhat dogmatically in this respect. So you've changed me there. I'll try not to be so prone to hierarchical obedience in the future (though I would say I'm quite able to hold my own against family at any rate ).
Finally, a quick question. Which in your opinion is the worst hierarchy? The state, religion, family, school? I have a feeling you'll say the state or religion (perhaps the state given the nature of our discussion) but I'm interested nonetheless.
What can I say? I'm a biker, so they won't let me in those fancy bars.
Just to touch on the body of your response, with regard to the solutions I provided that don't seem plausible to you. I understand that and frankly, I don't know what all the solutions are to all the problems we currently depend on government to solve. But what I do know is that there are a lot of people on this planet who specialize in knowing a hell of a lot more about all of those things than I'll ever know. And I know that corrupt politicians and cops very rarely ever lose their jobs when they harm others. True, they're supposed to but, they don't.
As for sharing your fears & follies at school, there's nothing at all stupid about that. Childish maybe, but then, where's the insult in being childish? Children sincere & honest, We teens and adults could take a very valuable lesson from them in that and a lot other respects. Instead, we tend to treat children like broken adults when in reality, we are broken children.
In answer to your question... the family. The family is where we learn subjugation to arbitrary authority. It's where we learn moral relativism. It's where we learn to use force and coercion against others.
Without the family, the others wouldn't exist. That's not to say that I'm anti family, either. The family is what breaks children but it doesn't have to be. It can be much better and to be sure, it has been getting better for as long as we can find evidence. And it will continue to get better, because each time someone decides to eliminate superstition, violence and coercion from their life, the children that person raises grow up not speaking the language of superstition, violence and coercion... and on and on it will go until the majority of people don't speak that language. And it's at that point, that governments and all other violent, hierarchical entities will simply be discarded.
The peaceful parenting movement has been around for about fifty years, so there aren't a lot of adults who have been raised without coercion now, but there was also a time when there were very few people who believed that slavery was immoral.
I don't want to burden you with more shit to read but if you're interested in the how and whys of what I mentioned above, lemme know.
Well, I sense this particular discussion is over. I just want to say that it's been interesting; you've not changed my mind about welfare, the Middle East or governmental authority, and I haven't changed yours, but you've changed my thinking in terms of hierarchical structures. That's a new line of thought I hadn't come across before, and I agree with pretty much all you say there, except I exempt (fair) governments from criticism in that sense still.
And of course I would be interested in hearing more. PM me if you ever want to talk to me about the ideas you expressed above again
"Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
-Christoper Hitchens, "Letters to a Young Contrarian."