the tyranny of the majority
the tyranny of the majority
Only when society is structured for the good of every individual is it possible for there to be no strife.
Re: the tyranny of the majority
It's never possible for a society to have no strife. If any two individuated (which is to say, not members of a hive) entities coexist for any appreciable portion of their life, they will have some contention between them. If many such individuals coexist for the duration of a long life, they will have many points of conflict, rivalry, competition, personality clash and disagreement regarding the collective and its functions. If the individuals are intelligent and diverse and the society complex, strife will be a routine part of each day.
How the society is structured will determine how destructive that strife is. If it's well organized, it has effective means of dealing with strife among individual members, as well as between the collective and other collectives. The more prominently "the good of each individual" figures in the proceeding of the community, the faster and more satisfactorily its conflicts are resolved.
IOW - i agree with the basic premise.
How the society is structured will determine how destructive that strife is. If it's well organized, it has effective means of dealing with strife among individual members, as well as between the collective and other collectives. The more prominently "the good of each individual" figures in the proceeding of the community, the faster and more satisfactorily its conflicts are resolved.
IOW - i agree with the basic premise.
Re: the tyranny of the majority
[quote=Skip post_id=478755 time=1604636275 user_id=6255]
It's [i]never[/i] possible for a society to have no strife. If any two individuated (which is to say, not members of a hive) entities coexist for any appreciable portion of their life, they will have some contention between them. If many such individuals coexist for the duration of a long life, they will have many points of conflict, rivalry, competition, personality clash and disagreement regarding the collective and its functions. If the individuals are intelligent and diverse and the society complex, strife will be a routine part of each day.
How the society is structured will determine how destructive that strife is. If it's well organized, it has effective means of dealing with strife among individual members, as well as between the collective and other collectives. The more prominently "the good of each individual" figures in the proceeding of the community, the faster and more satisfactorily its conflicts are resolved.
IOW - i agree with the basic premise.
[/quote]
I believe the examples you raise only exist because of current sadistic incentives, and that if we get the basics right, the conflicts that do occur can be reduced to irrelevancy. I believe the nature of humanity is to be good in good circumstances and vice versa.
It's [i]never[/i] possible for a society to have no strife. If any two individuated (which is to say, not members of a hive) entities coexist for any appreciable portion of their life, they will have some contention between them. If many such individuals coexist for the duration of a long life, they will have many points of conflict, rivalry, competition, personality clash and disagreement regarding the collective and its functions. If the individuals are intelligent and diverse and the society complex, strife will be a routine part of each day.
How the society is structured will determine how destructive that strife is. If it's well organized, it has effective means of dealing with strife among individual members, as well as between the collective and other collectives. The more prominently "the good of each individual" figures in the proceeding of the community, the faster and more satisfactorily its conflicts are resolved.
IOW - i agree with the basic premise.
[/quote]
I believe the examples you raise only exist because of current sadistic incentives, and that if we get the basics right, the conflicts that do occur can be reduced to irrelevancy. I believe the nature of humanity is to be good in good circumstances and vice versa.
Re: the tyranny of the majority
What IYO opinion defines the good of every individual? It cannot be a free society structured on secular values since by definition the primary motivating force is the struggle for individual "prestige" So we need a form of slavery which defines and enforces the good for every individual. Do you have a form of slavery you advocate which leads to the good for every individual?
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 16379
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
- Contact:
Re: the tyranny of the majority
if we get the basics right
what are the basics?
what are the basics?
Re: the tyranny of the majority
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=478799 time=1604679836 user_id=472]
[b]if we get the basics right[/b]
what are the basics?
[/quote]
That severe inequality always creates strife and a strife-free world is the eventual goal. That society that is only progressive for a few isn't society in any way that matters, and cannot be sustainable. There is only one problem in government - resource allocation. After that, there are additional problems but there is always a contingency tree. "The basics" means getting our priorities straight, including what collective action is good for. There are infinite ways to approach it but truth is always a prerequisite for justice, for example. Society for the few is never sustainable, for example.
[b]if we get the basics right[/b]
what are the basics?
[/quote]
That severe inequality always creates strife and a strife-free world is the eventual goal. That society that is only progressive for a few isn't society in any way that matters, and cannot be sustainable. There is only one problem in government - resource allocation. After that, there are additional problems but there is always a contingency tree. "The basics" means getting our priorities straight, including what collective action is good for. There are infinite ways to approach it but truth is always a prerequisite for justice, for example. Society for the few is never sustainable, for example.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 16379
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
- Contact:
Re: the tyranny of the majority
"The basics" means getting our priorities straight, including what collective action is good for.
the priorities bein' equality and equitable resource allocation, yeah?
how do we address inequality and inequitable resource allocation?
what is collective action and how is bein' used or misused today?
the priorities bein' equality and equitable resource allocation, yeah?
how do we address inequality and inequitable resource allocation?
what is collective action and how is bein' used or misused today?
-
RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: the tyranny of the majority
Of course. We all want to be respected rather than belittled. How does the guy get the girl he desires without prestige?
That is why secular communes cannot work. The guys are all sitting round describing how we are all one. Then the cute girl walks by strutting her stuff and it is every man for himself.