Putting Anarchy in its Place

If you think that men do not have instinct; why are you homosexual? Why did I have a sex dream when I was 6 and start looking for naked pictures in my encyclopedias by 8 (when I had no outside exposure to anything the least bit sexual)?
Could these militaristic men not be affected (as some fields of psychology would say) also by innate desires to conquer?

These social-comparisons and measurements combined with hungry egos will corrupt any system, not just one as inherently flawed as the monetary one. I'm all for a new system -- but what you've described so far is an unrealistic utopia.

 

You misunderstand the core purpose of our competitive nature. The fastest runner, the straightest arrow, the strongest man, all eat first, and the smartest one cooked it.

At birth we start sucking, instinctively. Excitement, anger, frustration, depression, satisfaction, desire, all innate human conditions. How these elements of human nature manifest themselves is determined by the environment. In your "utopia," you are relying on the element of satisfaction to "tame our savage beast." The primary reason this will not work is "habituation," these emotional elements are not very long lived. A new toy is soon forgotten, your favorite food every day gets old, and on and on. Soon they want more, something different, something new, satisfaction lasts only a while.

I'm not really that antithetical to this idea to some degree. Many facets of this are socialistic in nature and I favor public owned utilities, transportation, health care and food supply. I'm also in favor of minimum and maximum pay scales, but no limit on entrepreneurial investments and personal labor.

.

.

 

i don't think i'm homosexual because of instinct. i think sexuality is one aspect of personality (another shown controversial opinion of mine on these forums). and i think a small part is because of environment because environment affects nature, in turn affecting personality. the sex dream and pics is different than comparing to something like greed because you have a physical sex drive. humans don't have physical greed or competition drives, they are consisting of the mind. and this transitions into that militaristic innate desire, that it may have started as a small instinct based on physical hormones but largely fired by society's acknowledgement of inequality and hostility.

that doesnt prove my explanation otherwise.
that fastest runner and cook thing is quite interesting actually because it actually portrays the difference of human aspects between monetary and resource-based economies. in a monetary system, the cook demands exchange for their service, which then creates market demanding the athletes to compete for qualification. without that initial demand being made by cook (food made with automation) both athletes and cooks don't need to compete because everyone's mutual need is satisfied (at least in the industry of food). not exclusively the best athlete gets the food, so i think you're wrong by that thinking.

sucking thumbs and such are instinctive i agree, but consciousness isn't developed by then. yes, excitement and such emotions are modes of brain chemistry, affected by environment.

how does the system rely on satisfaction? the system relies on science, regardless of emotions. you're thinking of it like the emotions give birth to the system, but it's vice versa.

 

rehabilitation as opposed to throwing a person in jail is much more effective in ideals. in a resource-based economy, there wouldn't be a reason to throw someone in jail because it's wasteful, and not as effective. the death penalty is an issue to be made by human values, and that would be variable upon what culture happens in whatever kind of resource-based economy would happen. and letting a "criminal" go in society isn't beneficial either. this is why i explained why the resource-based economy would use a rehabilitation approach.

and in the post you originally wrote reprogramming in, says if someone steps out of line then they'd be reprogrammed. "step out of line" would mean to kill another person, or to physically abuse your family, or to molest someone, the most significant and actual crimes since the beginning of civilization. not something like disagree.

i hope this outlines the idea of a resource-based economy more accurately.

scientists are people changed by society and environment. facts aren't.

 

Competiviness is recognized by many psychologists and biologists as an innate trait; and by others as a learned trait.
But you must agree that certain humans show innate aggresiveness. Such as a child getting frustrated and banging their toy against the floor.

But how do you ensure the ways in which outside forces turn people's more aggressive tendencies -- aside from extreme control of the media, and the people?
How do you get people to the point of cooperation needed to convert to this new system?

 

there are no hard facts about psychology of humans with consciousness, so that does come down to opinion, and people will choose to believe whatever they want.
addressing that example, adults have more consciousness which means more control over their emotions, whether it be slightly less control or just the entitlement of more control. aside from that, emotions are an acknowledged thing by science and the culture and system would know how to deal with them just like they are handled now, but in the resource-based economy system it doesn't change the smart design of how resources are assessed and dealt with.

its just a matter of a grass-roots movement, in which hopefully common ideals can form a mutual solution through explanation, and discussion in which hopefully inspires boycotting (more like refusal) of the monetary system and creates purity in thought.

 

I've been reading about the Paris Commune of 1871. Twas a short lived window of Socialistic Anarchy that was crushed by military force.

The Commune emerged to govern Paris in the aftermath of defeat in the Franco Prussian war.

Another Anarchistic window opened in 1930's Spain, in Barcelona, Cantolonia; Which George Orwell wrote about.

I would be interested if anyone has other examples ?

 

It might have worked if they had settled on land that no one wanted and accumulated no wealth or anything of value. The biggest problem with anarchy is that there is always someone with a bigger gun. The primary reason for government is to protect citizens.

.