Is society stupid? Do we need to be told whats good for us?

There is nothing unfortunate about it.

In a world of self-rule, the only rule is 'Survival of the fittest'. No such concept as "leeching" off others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How about this as an example; in construction, people will soon have to wear hard hat, asbestos (substitute) gloves, steel toe-capped boots, eye and ear protecters regardless if they are doing anything through their job that would make them particulary at risk in any of these areas that would normally warrant this protection.

This is happening because the government has set targets that aim to reduce the amount of injuries/deaths that are directly related to the construction trade as it is one of the most dangerous industries in Britain, if not the most dangerous. If an accident happens on a site that is controlled by a particular contractor then they will get taken to court, heavily investigated and sued if necessary.

It is apparent to me that lawyers are having a field day and have everything to gain by the grasp of the law, the law is increasingly becoming a commercial business.

The law should be revised, with all laws that are populary broken being repealled. The law should go back to what it was originally therefore to punish murderers and theives etc. A basic set of rules should be drawn up and kept very basic.

As for all the stangling regulations that are imposed on every aspect of life that isnt covered by the law, they should be revised too. I think youll find that most people would be lost without a set of rules governing them at every hurdle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That’s just rationalization. In ‘survival of the fittest’ you take advantage of others. You leech off them. The average person is much worse off in such a world. It is highly likely you’d be worse off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is obvious to me that this would result in a much lower standard of living for the average person. Most of the laws exist for good reason. Some don’t serve us; it’s an evolving process.

Even my homeowner’s association needs several pages of rules to keep the property values optimal. If it were not for the rule, for example, that vehicles cannot be parked on one’s lawn, then someone surely would, and that’s just what happened when one homeowner thought it appropriate to park 3 bulldozers on his lawn. It was only because of the rules that we were able to get him to move, thus restoring our property values.

 

No, it was other peoples’ problem. The public paid for that death.

Sure, when the human population was 10% of current levels. The fish haven't increased in population like humans have, hence the need for regulations.

 

I beg to differ, esp. since I'm advocating it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If drug users paid their fair share of their vice, I’d agree. But they pay only a fraction of it. I, a non-drug user, pay for the methadone clinics and crack babies and survivor’s social security payments and prisons (for when they murder someone while high, not for drug use per se) and higher prices (because they are less productive and more prone to accident at work) and increased insurance (like protection against uninsured drivers, which drug users are more likely to be) and on and on. I have my own hobbies but I don't make other people involuntarily share the cost of them.

 

In "survival of the fittest" - which in my opinion wouldnt happen anyway, people would find that co-operation was best, and work together. In a sense, theyd all be leeching off each other, so it would be ok. And no one would take advantage of others, because those "others" wouldnt let them!

 

The end result of 'survival of the fittest' is civilization. You say they'd work together and wouldn't let others take advantage of them. Well, that's just what is happening today. Regulations are all about not letting others take advantage. Rather than duke it out with clubs every time someone leeches off another, a system of laws, enforcement and courts prevents leeching with higher efficiency. People have cooperated in developing a system to prevent people from taking unfair advantage.

 

As the Dead Kennedy's put it: "Anarchy is fun until someone has to fix the sewers. Then what?"

 

How is taking advantage unfair?

 

By "take advantage" I mean "take unfair advantage." So it's unfair by definition as the public decides that.

 

Scenario: Enter someone with a kalashnikov, he and says to all the other people; "Farm my crops for me or Ill mow you all down with my AK." as he stand there brandishing it. Out the window then goes cooperation in favour of forced labour.

So you then say that people like those wont be allowed to do these sort of things so who would stop them? The other people with guns? What happens when the other people with guns win victorious (the goodies always win in my scenarios), who then controls the good guys once they realise they could do exactly the same thing as the bad guy in the first place?

In the world of guns, you dont have to be "fit" to pull that trigger.

 

Unfair advantage is the lynch-pin of capitalism, the bosses dont do the work but they still make the money.

But you would have your own gun. The AK wielding authoritarian would come up to you, and someone would kill him. Eventually, there would be no more AK wielding authoritarians. Or even better, before that the concept of authority over another person would become so disgusting that no one would excercise it.

And whats to say you would control people? Your a nice person, and so are the majority of others. And if you tried to do that, theres no reason that the controlled wouldnt kill you too. One of the points of co-operating is for security, that one gunman could easily be shot down by 20 angry co-operators. Alot of people are getting killed here arent they?

 

Which is again rejecting self-rule..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The public" is not self-rule.

 

Why don't you work 21 hours in a korean sweat-shop for 1.50 a day, go home to 12 kids and a roach infested shack, and then tell me how it is'nt unfair.

 

No, in a democracy all the voters agree on the rules for capitalism. The voters agree that those at the top can have as much money and time off as they can horde as long as they follow the rules. So no unfair advantage taken. The voters can change the rules at any time.

Capitalism does get ugly when democracy isn't there or it's been corrupted, as SaddamnYouAll points out. That's why I favor strong democracy.

 

I think self-rule is too far-fetched to consider much further. You'd have to show how it's not. Like give some example of how you think it would work in practice. What would you do about your neighbor's complaints about, say, the smell of your poop wafting into their camp? Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

 

First off, what does that have to do with "advantage"?

Secondly, such a "plight" won't necessarily be yours in a system of self-rule. If you are good enough, that is..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Isn't that why it's called survival of the fittest? It has worked for a lot of years and I don't suppose it will stop today.