Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya
Yeah, because tribes never worked together or lived communally. Individuals in each tribe always competed against each other, gosh darn the consequences.
|
That is the snobbish sarcasm and high schoolish attitude that frustrates me with the left. Why is it necessary?
I’m not trying to win an argument; I’m simply trying to understand the logic.
Public housing and public transportation is not infrastructure, it is welfare.
Infrastructure is - by its very definition - roads, energy supply, communication, permanent military and state structures and security – the basic necessities for any community to function. You could include sanitation, or you could argue that sanitation is the responsibility of the citizens, not the government.
Tribes are the very basic root of socialism; small groups of people living and working together for the prosperity of their community. (also known as gangs, or guilds). The key word is small. There is little need or desire for competition in small groups of people like that, because for the most part, they all get along and help each other, so competition would be more of a hindrance than a help. But as time goes on and a tribe grows in numbers (either by allying or merging with other tribes or simply by procreating within their own tribe), its people begin forming their own ideas and opinions about how things should be, which gives birth to conflict within the community. More time passes and tribes break apart due to those conflicts of interest, giving birth to competition. Eventually, as resources become more scarce, those two groups will struggle for dominance over available land and resources because each believe, for whatever various reasons or combination of reasons, they have more right to them than the other, laying the groundwork for feudalism.
Humans are competitive by nature. It doesn’t matter what environment they exist in, they are instinctually competitive. All living species are, even plants. For humans, it is the principle, or concept, of fight or flight - a basic instinct, also known as survival, and it exists in every conceivable human relationship scenario. It does not always mean literally “saving one’s life from death”, it can also mean winning an argument.
Of course there are plenty of people who can co-exist peacefully and work together, but you will never get 100% of the people to work together peacefully 100% of the time, unless you are somehow able to control what they are able to think, feel, do and react to. If you allow for individual expression (thinking, feeling or doing), then you allow the groundwork to be laid for competition.
So, if the goal is to remove the desire for competition, I don't see how it is possible without removing human emotion and response to those emotions. That is control, there is no other term for it.
Personally I don't believe that any government works for large groups of people. There will always be conflict and struggle, which leads to segregation, which leads to competition and even greater power struggles. It doesn't matter what model of government you have in place, there will always be groups of people who disagree with that model of government and who will ultimately break away and form their own.
I’m not defending the rich and I never have – deliberately – defended the rich. The only thing I’ve ever defended is the ability to choose your own path. I’ve always tried my best to live by the wiccan rede. You act as though I’m some sort of foot soldier for the 1% when nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s disgusting that there are people in this world who are so filthy rich they are able to shit in solid gold toilets and their world of sheep swoons as they watch their billion-dollar wedding which the public is FORCED to pay for, (and not even ALLOWED to know how much they’re actually paying), while children in other countries starve to death. There is nothing more evil or twisted than that. Sending their troops in to slaughter the starving would be FAR more humane, because at least then, at the very least, they wouldn’t be suffering.
So for any of you to constantly accuse me of defending the rich just because I disagree with your logic and see it as no different than the control we are currently living under, is truly an insult. You want to rob every day people of the property they and their families have worked for their entire lives, and you think that will do something to end poverty?
Politics is no different than religion. I don’t like the right any more than I do the left. Both sides have their own agenda and when it’s all boiled down to basic shapes, both sides are vying for control of the masses, to force their belief system on everybody involved regardless of who agrees and who doesn't.
It may be worthy of noting that the one world government is more a capitalist agenda than it is a socialist one.