That all people are naturally born immoral without virtue where the only way to install it in them is with an iron hand of constant enforcement and a wise leadership.
That’s obviously what you yourself believe, but how does one force people to be virtuous? I think you can only force them to pretend they are virtuous.
The entire concept of civilization is forcing people to be civilized.
I could agree with this. I just don’t see how one type of civilization would be preferable to another if they always end up being the same thing, essentially?
1 Like
Please explain that more.
But what is civilization? What is civilized? Nonexploitative? Nonviolent? Principled? Fair?
We have the filthy rich systematically exploiting the working poor. We have global military organizations preparing for war. We arguably have the most degenerative, unprincipled and hedonistic society ever.
Civilization is merely organization. Civilized is merely organized.
The organization of wealth, the organization of resources, the organization of power, the organization of violence. Civilization enables the wealthy. Civilization organizes the powerful and the powerless. Civilization creates the rich and the poor.
Hierarchical organization appears to be characteristic of the species. Such organization inevitably leads to the issues discussed. It’s almost like bees complaining about the beehive.
There will always be corruption, others will always compete against you and systematic malfeasance will persist. The best thing one can do is enhance the lives of those closest to you, secure a family and ensure their support. There are too many dynamics and too many personalities at play in the world to improve them all single-handedly. Unfortunately those who actually have others to appreciate would rather spend time with the keyboard complaining of innate species arrangement than enhancing the lives of those nearest.
1 Like
Its a chimp and bonobo issue. Heirarchy is inherent to structure. Anarchy is the opposite of heirarchy. Anarachy is a vacuum that allows gang heirarchy violence to form.
Once you realize this you realize its a male issue. A chimp and bonobo issue. Traditional Male societies will always be dystopian. Futarani societies are required for utopias. Purely Matriarchal societies don’t innovate.
I can write a essay to you about it if you want, but I think Daniel has already summed it up:
Now, don’t just applaud.
Reflect on what he’s saying.
Applaud? He’s basically doomsaying and telling us we are doomed.
And all normies do is on their immediate surroundings, and social life, and he’s telling people to do more of that, to be more like normies and animals, instead of fixing society.
It seems many are trying to address the big issues rather than the small ones. The small issues are neglected which culminate in larger ones. This is why it is suggested that people do what they can, for those nearest, as opposed to toppling the whole socioeconomic order. That isn’t sensible. It’s sensible to help a family, to take care of them and ensure their well-being. If more did that the world would likely run a lot smoother and many of the larger issues would be avoided.
It’s easy to get caught up in societal problems because they are the driving force behind media. By becoming immersed in societal issues personal needs and familial connections are neglected exacerbating those very issues. Large-scale solution should be sought but not at the expense of family.
Civilization is suppose to be an existence that elevates all of humanity above being mere savage animals into something better that is more refined.
1 Like
Unlike Jean Jacques Rousseau who claimed all human beings are born good, moral, virtuous, and innocent where it is organized civilization that corrupts people overtime, Han Fei in contrast would say all people are born amoral, non-virtuous, corrupted, and wickedly untamed concerning our primal animal natures where it is up to the state to install civic moral virtues into people. Only through the state is human morality or virtue even possible.
Human corruption exists because the state isn’t organized enough to making people morally virtuous. A strong state creates a strong moral and virtuous people.
That is, in order to be moral we need Stalin and the gulag.
I choose immorality.
1 Like
You would, well you made your choice but they have consequences.
I can only try and imagine you living under the yoke of Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-un. How you would deal with your natural [male] nonconformity then. How your [male] pride would deal with the need of always bowing your head, always submitting to Big Brother’s whims [which he calls “morality”].
But then, you’re an ideologue. You can think whatever you want in the comfort of your capitalist décadence.
1 Like
You just want freedom without consequences, responsibility, and authority, neither path is optional or even possible, it’s you who is mentally deluded.
I want to abolish the social economic decadence of capitalism, social order must be maintained in all segments of society, the rich or wealthy are not immune from consequences either in my perception. If the wealthy act out against the commonwealth or greater community health they must be dealt with also in terms of consequences. Nobody is immune from consequences in my ideal state, the wealthy should be held to a higher standard than the average individual citizen as they have more power in terms of influence. To abuse that power should be considered a crime against the state itself, the state should naturally punish them for any treasonous misdeeds.
Yes, that’s how the ideal works. Marx thought like that. Only, what we had in reality was not Marx, but Stalin (whom you seem to admire, nonetheless), the megalomaniac.
Marx was not megalomaniac, and obviously he would never say amen to the gulag or to the unapologetic killing of political dissidents just because they happened to disagree with Big Brother about… whatever. But what Stalin did was transfigure Marxism according to his own megalomaniac mindset. Marx did not kill a single person in his entire life. But millions were dead in his name. Pretty much like Jesus.
1 Like
Democracy is highly susceptible to corruption and oligarchical private forces taking over the government politic, this is why later communists and even modern ones don’t embrace Marx’s democratic ideals. That, and a majority of people are uneducated or ignorant where they need saving from themselves. Voting is irrelevant.
This is the part where you try to sell me your anarchism where anarchy is going to save us all. [Your ideal of anarchy being the solution to everything even though true anarchy is nowhere to be found in the entirety of all human history. ]