Inter arma enim silent leges
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Collectivists start with direct democracy on smaller scales (villages, cities etc.) that use a form of Federalism on larger scales (states size collectivists).
Eye for an eye or not, follow the rule of law in that collectivist.
A person that prefer to work alone will be at the disadvantages compared to those who work inside the community.
No, but I bet Sawa Chan can.
Eye for an eye or not, follow the rule of law in that collectivist.
A person that prefer to work alone will be at the disadvantages compared to those who work inside the community.
No, but I bet Sawa Chan can.
In the light of the indoctrination used with the warrior-citizens of Sparta and the great feats they were able to achieve, do you think the indoctrination of ideals into a populace is a viable means for the creation of a better society?
Do you think it is possible to simultaneously indoctrinate and have an open society. . . or a free society?
Do you think it is possible to simultaneously indoctrinate and have an open society. . . or a free society?
True, but their wealth can only be created by the toils of others. And there are many who are not born in the financial aristocracy who must labor to survive. So in a society where toiling is essential is more productive, which inherently creates more wealth.
Still. . . this is an intriguing concept. I enjoy challenging any of my implicit assumptions.
I'd say that poverty is caused by a lacking of something that is a basic necessity.
Be it food, shelter, medical care, entertainment, etc.
Still. . . this is an intriguing concept. I enjoy challenging any of my implicit assumptions.
I'd say that poverty is caused by a lacking of something that is a basic necessity.
Be it food, shelter, medical care, entertainment, etc.
Correct, or more aptly; scarcity of basic needs caused poverty.
On a collective level, society must strife for all these basic needs to be available abundantly via technological progress.
On an individual level, the lack of profit motive resulted from the above will allow us to manifest the best of our own potentials for the betterment of society.
On a collective level, society must strife for all these basic needs to be available abundantly via technological progress.
On an individual level, the lack of profit motive resulted from the above will allow us to manifest the best of our own potentials for the betterment of society.
So you'd argue that we could replace the profit motive with collectivism, provide all of our basic needs and use collectivism to build TVs, and computers as well?
If we lost the profit motive, would it be possible for us to continue mass production (short of autocracy)? Would we really be able to build a computer for every citizen?
If we lost the profit motive, would it be possible for us to continue mass production (short of autocracy)? Would we really be able to build a computer for every citizen?
As a political philosopher, my first and immediate thought is for eradicating poverty, not for you to play games or watch American Idol.
Secondary needs should be adjusted with environmental sustainability.
Every years million cubic of electronic wastage are sent to the third world countries for disposal just so that zombie consumers in the West can satisfy their [artificially made] craving for so called "new technologies".
Secondary needs should be adjusted with environmental sustainability.
Every years million cubic of electronic wastage are sent to the third world countries for disposal just so that zombie consumers in the West can satisfy their [artificially made] craving for so called "new technologies".