I’m under the opinion and perspective that all government and social authority is manufactured where there really is no genuine foundation for any authority to exist beyond people consolidating their power in saying such.
I cannot stand government or social authority where they pose as the parent and guardian of other people’s existence.
What right are they granted power and authority over other people’s lives?
To this a government or social authority will say that it exists to protect the general populance from itself as if it somehow considers itself a father knows best state where everyone beyond the vicinity of government is almost considered to be children that needs to be managed.
Human beings are social animals and have been since before we even recognize them as human. To deny the social order is to deny humanity and the results are every bit as predictable as forcing men into a life of celibacy and then surrounding them in little boys.
Short answer is governments get their authority from the governed when the governed accept the rule of the government. By accept I mean just tacit consent. Explicit consent is untenable for future generations. Anyone who demands it and who says lacking it all governments are illegitimate has unreasonable out of this world, “god” standards. But you know, god is dead and all that.
I want you to try something. Imagine a kind of society controlled by a government with a genuine foundation. I want to know what standard you are holding modern societies to.
In other words governments assume the role of power and authority by other people’s submission.
Explain that.
Explain.
Governments and various social authorities describes themselves to have legitimate authorities yet none of them even bother providing evidence or any reason at all to illustrate legitimacy.
Yes.
I can’t think of any. I’m merely expressing that neither can anybody else.
We’re pack animals, like dogs or monkeys. That should answer your questions. As for the antisocial elements, they are rare and maladaptive. shrugs Like any other animal.
Would you deny that the people ever play a part in this consolidation (i.e. they informally elect someone to be their leader), or would you say it’s always decided behind closed doors and then imposed on the people whether they agree to it or not?
You keep saying were social animals…What I want to know is, to what degree are we social animals?
Are you saying human beings are entirely social? I do not believe we are.
If human beings are entirely social why is it that we seem unable to do anything for each other without some form of compensation?
( As I have said previously in other threads I believe most organization, social interaction, and relationships exist purely out of convenience only.)
It doesn’t.
Not really.
As I said previously human beings seem generally unable to do anything for each other without some form of compensation or profit because individual human beings are dominantly consumed by their own self interests which they prioritize over the interests of other human beings where they will only expend some of their energies in assistance to others if they are at first rewarded for themselves to do so. That to me doesn’t seem very social at all where it sounds more on the lines of anti- social behavior.
When I think of social behavior I think of a herd of water buffalo that comes to the aid of a disabled water buffalo maimed by a pack of lions that come without any sort of attachments at all as a group when it concerns the disabled member.
I wasn’t speaking so much of democracies as general groups of people in which no clear leader (or group thereof) stands out, and some form of mob instinct kicks in to elect a leader (or group thereof) to rule over them. If you take a look at history, this is the typical scenario that plays out. People, on average, want some kind of rulership to guide them in life more than to be independent and free.
I think that goes without saying for non-democratic governments. I know of no other kinds, if it’s not democratic, than dictatorships, in which case it’s not really what I was talking about either. In dictatorships, the leader has already been chosen - loooong ago - and now the people have no choice - even when power is usurped by the next dictator. What I’m talking about is before any government has been formed - or between the rise and fall of governments - in which case all you have is the people and their mob mentality.
I’d say that capitalism has rotted your brain. Think about mutual grooming between apes. A pack of dogs sharing in a kill. All parties benefit in mutual grooming, of course. One individual gets their ticks removed and the other party gets a nice grubby treat. The entire pack partakes in the kill or events that allowed the kill to take place, but they all share in the feast. Most assuredly, those of higher rank get the better cut of meat whereas the omega-wolf has to make due with the bits that are mostly cartilage and fur – but there is still a social aspect to it.
Even ants and other eusocial animals have both ranking systems and uneven distribution of goods – and all those guys are genetically identical! Heck, they even have to worry about workers becoming pregnant and the eusocial order breaking down. But to conclude from that that the hive doesn’t exist seems counterintuitive in the extreme!
Don’t despair. I agree with you that human beings are individuals first, part of a social collective second. This necessarily eliminates any objective existence of any “collective” construct – there is no “humanity” organism, just groups of human beings, voluntarily associating.
More to your specific comments I’ve quoted above: it is important to retain the distinction and context. We are all independent beings who choose our interconnected dependencies – not by force, but through rational self-interest. Think about it. If you really wanted to isolate yourself - you could. You could learn to live off the land entirely. The planet is massive - and there are many diverse landscapes that would “welcome” any individual who seeks a nominal existence – simple, pure, survival. However, to simply survive, imo, is not actually living relative to what we know is possible should we choose to depend on a series of relationships with other independent beings.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, the warehouse of available knowledge accessible to a single human being has grown to a point that far surpasses our present ability to absorb, let alone apply. I’m certain that I could build a furnace from the ground up… but the time required to learn the necessary trade skills and natural science knowledge and application to make it happen would take an inordinate, and impractical amount of time when I can simply purchase one from a store.
I choose to depend on those individuals who have, through their own volition, chosen to acquire the necessary skills to produce the specific products that my desired lifestyle demands. I make this choice not as a result of forced dependency; rather, through my rational, long term self interest as my personal values direct what limited time I have on this planet towards other areas of interest besides mere survival skills…
Remove all but 1 human being from the planet and the “human species” still exists. Contrast this to the removal of all but 1 cell from a human being – the human being no longer exists. Therefore, the analogy fails. We could also try and discuss the idea of sapience/sentience… but I don’t think it’s necessary here.
The “existence” of a social organization as anything more than the volitional association between a group of individuals is illusory - imo. Unless of course, the individuals become willing victims and subordinate themselves… ie: to a god, a king, or “the common good”. Even then, the existence of an actual social organism requires the consent, in some form, of the individual.
The number doesn’t matter. How many cells must there be for a human being to exist? I imagine the “abortion” thread is ripe with posts on this very nature.
How many human beings are required for the species to actually “continue” versus “exist” is splitting hairs when considered in the context of your question and the subject of my post. 1 human being constitutes the existence of a species. 2 human beings assures the possibility for continuance through procreation. The point here is that human beings as individuals within a larger group of individual human beings can not be compared to individual cells within an actual organism to draw conclusions about human nature…
And that is where I disagree. As you said, abortion threads are rife with this and my stance on abortion is consistent with my ideology. You say it is splitting hairs, but is it? I can culture a single cell in a dish without any problems. Sometimes cells go into business for themselves and become cancers. That doesn’t argue against humans being a multicellular organism.