Thread: What is your definition of Freedom - Is a Utopia possible

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

We used to have so much more leisure time.... Even in the recent past.

Define what you mean by "recent."

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You sacrifice for your family don't you? That is not fascism, that is family.

Such sacrifice is voluntary. No one is compelled to do it. If you want to persuade others to sacrifice "for the greater good," then I wouldn't be so aggressive in my statements. Yet you say "must" and with so many idealists who want to make the world a better place, they often turn to compulsion because persuasion isn't always effective or as effective as they would like.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You sacrifice to the state right now. In fact you probably sacrifice more to the state than you are able to sacrifice for your family. Do you live in a town, or a city, or in the country? This topic seems a bit over your head since you either deliberately put a spin on my words or that is the only position you can understand.

The injustices experienced now is not justification for their existence. Many people's rights are aggressed against in the world today, but that doesn't make aggression acceptable. Libertarians aim at what should be, irregardless of what is.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Define what you mean by "recent."

In this case, sixty years ago at most.

Such sacrifice is voluntary. No one is compelled to do it. If you want to persuade others to sacrifice "for the greater good," then I wouldn't be so aggressive in my statements. Yet you say "must" and with so many idealists who want to make the world a better place, they often turn to compulsion because persuasion isn't always effective or as effective as they would like.

Of course it is voluntary to raise your children. But if one was asking how to have a happy family, I would say that you 'must' raise your children instead of abandoning them to an orphanage or foster home. If somebody is asking about Utopia, I would say that one 'must' be aware of what is good for the whole and what is not good for the whole. I see that you took that to mean some kind of fascist authoritarian statement and I am sorry for perhaps coming across that way. Part of my idea of a Utopia is anarchy. In this case there is no authority to lay down laws rather than the whole deciding through council what it wants for Utopia.

As far as the peasant thing goes, peasants are a product of the class system, which capitalism depends on. Capitalism needs peasants. So only some people are able to have the leisure to philosophize while others are needed to toil. This is also rather recent in terms of human history. Organized religion being at most 10,000 years old while humans have been around for what? At least 300,000 years? Tribal societies are extremely artistic and religious, although their religion is not an organized one where there are priests who interpret the scriptures for the iliterate. Everyone shares the work and the leisure.

The Native American Indians were/are extremely skilled artists and craftsmen. Native American leather being the finest tanned leather in the world. Look at their pottery. Look at the Indians' philosophies of democracy which is more sophisticated than the Greeks. It was the Indians, and not so much the Greeks, who inspired the American forefathers regarding democracy. Too bad it ain't a democracy anymore. In tribal societies, it is not the rich who get the leisure time to do what they will with, it is the elderly and the young children.

Now, don't get me wrong. My idea of Utopia is not living in teepees and hunting and gathering and tanning hides. But I think that we should be aware that we all have that as our history, and that is the default mode for a natural human, not this society based on economics (which is a false ecology). Looking at how happy tribal people are consistently, and how much of our happiness and leisure we have sacrificed for progress and technological dogma, we can become aware of how to enjoy an enlightened technology with the enlightened social/political aspects of tribal living.

When I think of Utopia I see greenhouses, wind/wave/solar powered energy generators. I see no waste, nothing to throw away. No harmful bi-products. I see lots of fruit trees and nut trees. I see polyhedron domes for buildings. I see less people. I see more animals. I see more forests and pristine nature. I see people living in harmony with their ecology. I see all people being equal and enjoying the same rights. I see people deciding on their village's rules being decided by an open council. Rules such as "don't build a house in the watershed" or "do what you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freewill" etc....

But how to create a global Utopia?

The injustices experienced now is not justification for their existence. Many people's rights are aggressed against in the world today, but that doesn't make aggression acceptable.

yes, and...? Of course the decision to live in a Utopia is voluntary as long as there is another option. But if you are harming people (the greater good) say by cutting down trees in the watershed and building your house there and dumping your shit in the water, I don't think that it is fascist for the community of people who depend on that watershed to go remove that person and show him an acceptable place to build his house. This is what I am talking about when saying that people need to sacrifice their personal desires for the good of the community. The desire to build your house in the most beautiful place and that place happens to be where the presence of your house will endanger your community, then that is a personal greedy desire and not part of any Utopian vision besides maybe the rich elite whose vision of Utopia might be that of two classes: the rich and the peasants (or the slaves).


And for the last time, capitalism only increased leisure time for the elite class at the expense of the rest of humanity. Perhaps your vision of Utopia includes an elite class of rich people that do all the thinking and art making while the rest toil to make ends meet. try living with a tribal society and see how most of the time people are hanging out enjoying each other's company while making works of art and occasionally going on a hunt while it takes only a few people an hour a day of gathering the plants to eat. Any and all tribal societies have this in common. Even the Inuits, who arguably may have it the roughest still enjoy a high degree of happiness and more leisure time than the "civilized" do today.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

In this case, sixty years ago at most.

Caught up in romanticizing the past? You think that the 1940's presented greater leisure time then today. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Of course it is voluntary to raise your children. But if one was asking how to have a happy family, I would say that you 'must' raise your children instead of abandoning them to an orphanage or foster home.

Are you ready to use force to ensure that people raise their children? If not then don't use the word 'must,' use the word like. It is more factual in its presentation of your ideas.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If somebody is asking about Utopia, I would say that one 'must' be aware of what is good for the whole and what is not good for the whole.

If that is your mind set of a utopia then you would not even know where to begin because you cannot quantify what is "good" and "not good" for millions of people or even a group of people. You can't add up qualitative differences so you're pretty much screwed to the point of not even being able to imagine what a utopia would be like.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I see that you took that to mean some kind of fascist authoritarian statement and I am sorry for perhaps coming across that way. Part of my idea of a Utopia is anarchy. In this case there is no authority to lay down laws rather than the whole deciding through council what it wants for Utopia.

Then you don't understand what anarchy means. Don't worry, it is common for anarcho-socialist types to get caught up in this problem. You don't want authority but you want a council of individuals deciding everything for everyone....that sounds like authority.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

As far as the peasant thing goes, peasants are a product of the class system, which capitalism depends on. Capitalism needs peasants.

Peasants is a term from Feudalism. Do you mean to say that Capitalism needs workers? If so then can you establish what constitutes a "worker class?"

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So only some people are able to have the leisure to philosophize while others are needed to toil.

Philosophizing is toil. Some people don't even consider it leisure.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This is also rather recent in terms of human history. Organized religion being at most 10,000 years old while humans have been around for what? At least 300,000 years? Tribal societies are extremely artistic and religious, although their religion is not an organized one where there are priests who interpret the scriptures for the iliterate. Everyone shares the work and the leisure.

I think you over romanticize the past again. Did the chief engage in labor in all societies? The elders? Many tribal societies engaged in oral tradition which could include religious myths but these religious myths might not have passed into this generation because they are oral traditions.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The Native American Indians were/are extremely skilled artists and craftsmen. Native American leather being the finest tanned leather in the world. Look at their pottery. Look at the Indians' philosophies of democracy which is more sophisticated than the Greeks. It was the Indians, and not so much the Greeks, who inspired the American forefathers regarding democracy. Too bad it ain't a democracy anymore. In tribal societies, it is not the rich who get the leisure time to do what they will with, it is the elderly and the young children.

Yes yes, it was the Iroquois' who stoked the fires of democracy. I mean let us disregard that democracy was created in France. It was actually from the people that many considered savages.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Now, don't get me wrong. My idea of Utopia is not living in teepees and hunting and gathering and tanning hides. But I think that we should be aware that we all have that as our history, and that is the default mode for a natural human, not this society based on economics (which is a false ecology). Looking at how happy tribal people are consistently, and how much of our happiness and leisure we have sacrificed for progress and technological dogma, we can become aware of how to enjoy an enlightened technology with the enlightened social/political aspects of tribal living.

Yes, outliving 40 is certainly a sacrifice to our happiness. Being able to specialize in a field of study which interests us and is allowed by the division of labor is certainly cutting into our happiness. You have this naive Rosseauian concept of the natural man as if he is lounging by the lake side, picking berries from the tree he is under.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

When I think of Utopia I see greenhouses, wind/wave/solar powered energy generators. I see no waste, nothing to throw away.

Waste is a natural product of expended energy.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

No harmful bi-products. I see lots of fruit trees and nut trees. I see polyhedron domes for buildings. I see less people. I see more animals. I see more forests and pristine nature. I see people living in harmony with their ecology. I see all people being equal and enjoying the same rights. I see people deciding on their village's rules being decided by an open council. Rules such as "don't build a house in the watershed" or "do what you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freewill" etc....

Well you probably see so few people because they are all dead because a tribal society cannot sustain a mass populace or an advanced economy/division of labor. You wouldn't have doctors or scientists or teachers. You would have Joe the pecan picker and Mary the cow milker. If people all enjoy the same rights then by what ability does a council dictate to another where they can build? What if I wish to build on the watershed? By what right does the council stop me from doing such thing?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

yes, and...? Of course the decision to live in a Utopia is voluntary as long as there is another option. But if you are harming people (the greater good) say by cutting down trees in the watershed and building your house there and dumping your shit in the water, I don't think that it is fascist for the community of people who depend on that watershed to go remove that person and show him an acceptable place to build his house.

Well you are presenting the same principle that a fascist would present.
"We know what is best for this person in terms of their position amongst the majority"
You can change the wording but its still the same principle.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This is what I am talking about when saying that people need to sacrifice their personal desires for the good of the community. The desire to build your house in the most beautiful place and that place happens to be where the presence of your house will endanger your community, then that is a personal greedy desire and not part of any Utopian vision besides maybe the rich elite whose vision of Utopia might be that of two classes: the rich and the peasants (or the slaves).

If it is a place which harms people then let those people seek restitution against the perpetrator. If someone pours bleach onto my lawn and kills my grass, that doesn't afford me the right to kick him off his/her land.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

And for the last time, capitalism only increased leisure time for the elite class at the expense of the rest of humanity. Perhaps your vision of Utopia includes an elite class of rich people that do all the thinking and art making while the rest toil to make ends meet. try living with a tribal society and see how most of the time people are hanging out enjoying each other's company while making works of art and occasionally going on a hunt while it takes only a few people an hour a day of gathering the plants to eat. Any and all tribal societies have this in common. Even the Inuits, who arguably may have it the roughest still enjoy a high degree of happiness and more leisure time than the "civilized" do today.

Right this minute only elites are benefiting from the internet, sitting here having a ridiculous discussion about our richness. I mean Steve Jobs doesn't work...he philosophizes and the money rolls in, from out of nowhere. You ever wonder why there are such a small niche of people in actual tribal living? It is because they cannot sustain large populations on primitive surroundings. New York City can't all go out berry picking for subsistence. Small populations usually mean an undeveloped division of labor. The larger a population, the more diverse a division of labor usually is. You may want to read more into the Inuits also. There seems to be a correlation with them and a higher rate of suicide. It's probably because they are so extremely happy.

Freedom is being able to do whatever you want-- basically having free will.
So, yes, I am free. Technically. I am free right now to run away into the wilderness and evade my taxes, to kill people and whatever else, or I am free to trap and entangle myself within debts and responsibilities. Though these actions will have repercussions, and I may become imprisoned (which would make me.. not free) right now I am able to do any of these things. I am free to do nothing too, but then I am likely to starve. So I can definitely see how someone could make the case that I am not really free, but since I can do whatever I please, I would still classify myself as free, though loosely.

First question: Do you even think a Utopia is possible? Explain
Yes, if by Utopia you mean an ideal society within the laws of this world. Suffering can never be completely eliminated.

Second: What would the most basic Utopia look like, that is what do you think most people on the planet would agree to.
I don't know what most people think of as a Utopia, but I think that it would be like back in the hunter-gatherer days, maybe a society similar to the American Indian society before Europeans came to North America.
I think it's the best environment for man, honestly. There's not too many people back then, so you rarely come into contact with other groups, thus you also rarely go into war. Also, because there are more animals than there are people, you rarely starve unless you get separated from your group. Though there are still wicked people in the world, there is no way for them to come into control of all a huge number of people like they can today. People never get fat because they are constantly working their bodies. You can believe in the comfort of gods and fairytales, because there is no science to disprove it. There is no technology to take time away from your family. There is no money in the world, so there is no division between poor and rich. The only way you become powerful within your tribe is by your own strength and intellect, not by the money in your pocket.
There's many many other things I haven't listed. I just think that in this world, if I had to pick the environment the closest to utopia as possible, this would be it.

Third: How does one achieve this Utopia with the smoothest transition possible.
In this day and age? I don't know if it's possible. You would probably have to first eliminate the majority of mankind by some kind of plague or natural disaster, then give the earth a couple centuries to heal itself (if not a couple millennium), plus the time it takes to almost completely eradicate this time from human memory. By then, maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe those surviving humans just rebuilt the world we know today. I wouldn't call it smooth, anyways.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Caught up in romanticizing the past? You think that the 1940's presented greater leisure time then today. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

From being alive then and seeing how one person could support a family of 3 while working minimum wage.

If that is your mind set of a utopia then you would not even know where to begin because you cannot quantify what is "good" and "not good" for millions of people or even a group of people. You can't add up qualitative differences so you're pretty much screwed to the point of not even being able to imagine what a utopia would be like.

I CAN decide what is good for everybody, and that is what I act on. I don't do anything that harms anybody. And you can also.

Then you don't understand what anarchy means. Don't worry, it is common for anarcho-socialist types to get caught up in this problem. You don't want authority but you want a council of individuals deciding everything for everyone....that sounds like authority.

I do understand anarchy, and have lived in anarchistic societies. The council is open to the whole community and anybody can take part in the process of self-governing (which is the definition of anarchy). Anybody who doesn't show up forfeits their right to be a part of decision making.

Peasants is a term from Feudalism. Do you mean to say that Capitalism needs workers? If so then can you establish what constitutes a "worker class?"

Please don't argue semantics. Peasants = worker class.

Philosophizing is toil. Some people don't even consider it leisure.

Well at least they know where they are going to sleep tonight and where their next meals are coming from. If the REAL needs aren't met, philosophy is a luxury.

I think you over romanticize the past again. Did the chief engage in labor in all societies? The elders? Many tribal societies engaged in oral tradition which could include religious myths but these religious myths might not have passed into this generation because they are oral traditions.

I don't understand your point. I think you are trying to counter point everything I post without having a clear argument. Yes, the chiefs in Indian society also worked to ensure the survival of their people, or else they wouldn't be chief....duh. The elders didn't have to work if it wasn't needed because they already did their work helping the more recent generations possible to survive.

Yes yes, it was the Iroquois' who stoked the fires of democracy. I mean let us disregard that democracy was created in France. It was actually from the people that many considered savages.

????? France was inspired by the USA to have a revolution and become democratic.

Yes, outliving 40 is certainly a sacrifice to our happiness. Being able to specialize in a field of study which interests us and is allowed by the division of labor is certainly cutting into our happiness. You have this naive Rosseauian concept of the natural man as if he is lounging by the lake side, picking berries from the tree he is under.

The American Indians generally lived into their 60s. Yes, people can and do live as if lounging by the lakeside and picking berries from bushes and trees, and some hunting to provide enough protein. You call it naive, but it is the reality. I live this way.

Waste is a natural product of expended energy.

But in nature nothing is wasted.

Well you probably see so few people because they are all dead because a tribal society cannot sustain a mass populace or an advanced economy/division of labor. You wouldn't have doctors or scientists or teachers. You would have Joe the pecan picker and Mary the cow milker. If people all enjoy the same rights then by what ability does a council dictate to another where they can build? What if I wish to build on the watershed? By what right does the council stop me from doing such thing?

That is why a mass populace is unsustainable. The ecosystem of the planet cannot support it. Our population started increasing exponentially since +- 150 years ago and you see where it has got us? And we are all teachers. And yes, tribal societies have doctors. Modern Anarchistic societies also have doctors. There are anarchist doctors in our midst, but you have to live in an anarchistic society to meet them.

If you build your house in somebody's watershed, the people have the right to remove you because they are the majority and their survival depends on it. Your survival depends on them. What right? The right of the living! If you go into a restaurant and start shooting people, what right do they have to tackle you and take your gun and beat the crap out of you? The right of the living to stay alive. This is an inalienable right. Please don't waste my time with stupid questions. What right do you have to fight back against unwarranted aggression? It is not the council who will stop you, it your friends and family who will tie you to a tree until you see the error of your ways if you keep asking such stupid questions. I have tied someone to a tree before who abused freedom and raped an innocent woman until he saw the error of what he done. He was tied to that tree for over a week until the council decided to untie him. The woman who was raped was in the council, and so were many women. We didn't untie him until we ALL decided it was time. What RIGHT do YOU have to go against your community and build your house in the watershed? I don't think you know the consequences of building in a watershed. Don't you know that all the drinking water necessary for survival comes from a watershed and living in the watershed pollutes the water? Don't you know that most epidemics in the past have been from polluted water? Don't you know that all watersheds in America at least, and probable Europe and most communities across Asia all protect their watersheds and forbid people living there? What right does modern society have to enforce this? The same right that a tribal society does. Duh, this is not a philosophical political issue, this is common sense survival. Please think for yourself and stop trying to assert your intelligence by coming up with half-hearted arguments that aren't thought through. It seems that you like argument for argument's sake.

Well you are presenting the same principle that a fascist would present.
"We know what is best for this person in terms of their position amongst the majority"
You can change the wording but its still the same principle.

Some people deserve and need to live under fascist rule. Until people can be responsible for themselves, fascism will be an unfortunate necessity. If you don't like fascism, then be responsible for yourself. Obviously you don't have any children.

If it is a place which harms people then let those people seek restitution against the perpetrator. If someone pours bleach onto my lawn and kills my grass, that doesn't afford me the right to kick him off his/her land.

your response does not apply to my statement. The land does not belong to us, we belong to the land.

Right this minute only elites are benefiting from the internet, sitting here having a ridiculous discussion about our richness. I mean Steve Jobs doesn't work...he philosophizes and the money rolls in, from out of nowhere. You ever wonder why there are such a small niche of people in actual tribal living? It is because they cannot sustain large populations on primitive surroundings. New York City can't all go out berry picking for subsistence. Small populations usually mean an undeveloped division of labor. The larger a population, the more diverse a division of labor usually is. You may want to read more into the Inuits also. There seems to be a correlation with them and a higher rate of suicide. It's probably because they are so extremely happy.

I don't know who Steve Jobs is. I know what happens to the people who are living tribally: they get killed so the greedy can exploit their land. We don't need large populations of people for a Utopia. We don't need to cover the Earth with people. Small populations mean everybody shares in the labor because survival is more of an immediate concern. The Inuits have roughly the same rate of suicide as anybody from the northern latitudes. A little higher perhaps because their land and their ways of living off of the land were taken from them. Toothache was the highest cause of suicide until recently, what is your point?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

From being alive then and seeing how one person could support a family of 3 while working minimum wage.

Personal experience is not grounds for evidence especially concerning something so subjective as standard of living.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I CAN decide what is good for everybody, and that is what I act on. I don't do anything that harms anybody. And you can also.

That is what you are not understanding. What you think is good for everyone might not be good for anyone but yourself. You follow non-aggression, that is wonderful. I do the same but that does not entitle me to tell people what is good for their lives. I can persuade people. I can discuss ideas but I cannot coerce them. You don't seem reluctant to coerce as given by your watershed example.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I do understand anarchy, and have lived in anarchistic societies. The council is open to the whole community and anybody can take part in the process of self-governing (which is the definition of anarchy). Anybody who doesn't show up forfeits their right to be a part of decision making.

And that makes no sense whatever. Anarchy is without rulers yet if you don't engage in council activities then you are not afforded any legal rights? Such an existence is just like the state we have now. If you are not an American citizen, then you don't have the right of an American citizen. At least today they keep the pretense that just because you don't vote doesn't forfeit your rights. Your system would take that away and you call it anarchy. I believe you are sorely mistaken in what the proper conception of anarchy is.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Please don't argue semantics. Peasants = worker class.

It's not semantics. Peasants are beheld to the land by their local ruler. A worker is not. You didn't answer my question also, what constitutes "the working class?"

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Well at least they know where they are going to sleep tonight and where their next meals are coming from. If the REAL needs aren't met, philosophy is a luxury.

Philosophy can be utilized in order to meet needs. Ever hear of a philosophy professor? If you are happy with subsistence living then I wish you well. It is not the life for me but something is telling me you don't subscribe to such a debased value system in which subsistence is all that matters. You are engaging in a luxury item with the internet or at least I consider it a luxury item.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I don't understand your point. I think you are trying to counter point everything I post without having a clear argument. Yes, the chiefs in Indian society also worked to ensure the survival of their people, or else they wouldn't be chief....duh. The elders didn't have to work if it wasn't needed because they already did their work helping the more recent generations possible to survive.

So the chief sat around and directed work towards the survival of his people..sounds like a manager of a business, directing workers towards profitability and their continued survival in the business world but of course you shun this idea and yet venerate tribal society...

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

????? France was inspired by the USA to have a revolution and become democratic.

Democracy was born in France or at least the democracy we utilize. If you want to get technical democracy was created by the Greeks. Anyways, European philosophers who were writing about the political institutions of Europe were the catalyst for influencing the development of American democracy.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The American Indians generally lived into their 60s. Yes, people can and do live as if lounging by the lakeside and picking berries from bushes and trees, and some hunting to provide enough protein. You call it naive, but it is the reality. I live this way.

Right you live this way while debating me...on the internet. And are you saying that Native Americans generally lived into their 60's during the pre-industrial period? Cause I would love to see proof of that.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But in nature nothing is wasted.

Obviously you weren't around for the entropy discussion on this forum.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

That is why a mass populace is unsustainable. The ecosystem of the planet cannot support it. Our population started increasing exponentially since +- 150 years ago and you see where it has got us? And we are all teachers. And yes, tribal societies have doctors. Modern Anarchistic societies also have doctors. There are anarchist doctors in our midst, but you have to live in an anarchistic society to meet them.

Yes I see where it has got us. You are using one of the very things its got us...the internet. If I had said to you 200 years ago that there would one day be an item which allows a person to contact another individual across the planet instantaneously you would of thought me insane. The products of the Industrial Revolution have allowed for the population to explode to the point where it is today. If you wish to see what would of happened if the Industrial Revolution didn't happen then google Irish Potato Famine and then project that onto a world-wide scale. Ireland was one of the nations that didn't immediately engage in the Industrial Revolution and the population increase they experienced lead to nation-wide hunger. Honestly, I don't understand you. You say before that you don't want to do people harm, noble enough, yet you are proposing a system which would keep the world in a Malthusian trap constantly and never advancing past this subsistence tribal living. Billions would die to get to this state of being and untold numbers would never be born because of this iron fist type of living. Do you really not want to cause people harm? Should you not wish for abundance for all? How is abundance achieved? By starving till there is more, or producing more till there is no starvation?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If you build your house in somebody's watershed, the people have the right to remove you because they are the majority and their survival depends on it. Your survival depends on them.

Again, I don't see a difference between what you are saying and what denounce as fascism.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What right? The right of the living! If you go into a restaurant and start shooting people, what right do they have to tackle you and take your gun and beat the crap out of you? The right of the living to stay alive. This is an inalienable right. Please don't waste my time with stupid questions.

Yes but do you give capital punishment to a kid who steals gum? Do you give 30 days in jail to a murderer? There is proportional justice. The punishment must fit the crime. If I build my house on a watershed, the act of building it isn't harming you. Now if I slipped some chemical into it and you got sick, like I said before, it would be perfectly acceptable to seek court to sue me for harming you but just because I harmed you doesn't give you the right to burn down my house, move my house or kill me.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What right do you have to fight back against unwarranted aggression? It is not the council who will stop you, it your friends and family who will tie you to a tree until you see the error of your ways if you keep asking such stupid questions. I have tied someone to a tree before who abused freedom and raped an innocent woman until he saw the error of what he done. He was tied to that tree for over a week until the council decided to untie him. The woman who was raped was in the council, and so were many women. We didn't untie him until we ALL decided it was time.

So you were the head of mob justice. Bully for you. Did the woman ask you to be her agent in the acquisition of justice? Or did you just take this upon yourself to tie a man to the tree? Did you even give him a trial to defend himself? If not then what doesn't make you a criminal?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What RIGHT do YOU have to go against your community and build your house in the watershed? I don't think you know the consequences of building in a watershed. Don't you know that all the drinking water necessary for survival comes from a watershed and living in the watershed pollutes the water? Don't you know that most epidemics in the past have been from polluted water? Don't you know that all watersheds in America at least, and probable Europe and most communities across Asia all protect their watersheds and forbid people living there? What right does modern society have to enforce this? The same right that a tribal society does. Duh, this is not a philosophical political issue, this is common sense survival. Please think for yourself and stop trying to assert your intelligence by coming up with half-hearted arguments that aren't thought through. It seems that you like argument for argument's sake.

Well whether or not there can be such a thing as 'government land' is certainly an interesting question. Whether people would actually build upon a watershed without government interference is also an interesting question. Not only because of the structure problems one might have but also the potential ligation that might ensue from building there. People might come up with all sorts of lawsuits blaming you for everything bad that happens to them.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Some people deserve and need to live under fascist rule. Until people can be responsible for themselves, fascism will be an unfortunate necessity. If you don't like fascism, then be responsible for yourself. Obviously you don't have any children.

Right because raising a child is like a fascist regime. Don't worry I will euthanize if my child comes out disabled like the Nazis did. If you wish to live under fascism and run a fascist family then by all means engage in doing so but do not speak for others.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

your response does not apply to my statement. The land does not belong to us, we belong to the land.

How introspective. I will treat this like I treated your fascist regime comment, if you wish to live in a communal area that does not believe in land rights then by all means engage in so. I will continue to live in a society which does have land rights.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I don't know who Steve Jobs is. I know what happens to the people who are living tribally: they get killed so the greedy can exploit their land. We don't need large populations of people for a Utopia. We don't need to cover the Earth with people. Small populations mean everybody shares in the labor because survival is more of an immediate concern. The Inuits have roughly the same rate of suicide as anybody from the northern latitudes. A little higher perhaps because their land and their ways of living off of the land were taken from them. Toothache was the highest cause of suicide until recently, what is your point?

Steve Jobs is the head of Apple Inc. You know iPhones, iPads, Macs. I think I answered your population comments in my previous post so I don't need to rehash it out here. Concerning the Inuits, their suicide rate is seven times higher then the national average. I wouldn't call it "a little." The problem they are experiencing is the fact that so many are stuck in the motif of living off the land while the youth sees the outside world growing. It is like the Berlin wall. Everything on the other side looks so much better then what is on this side.

Global Utopia? Never.

However one day I think it will be possible, and may well exist in large pockets such as entire towns, in none of our lifetimes though. Utopias may well have existed in the past, but since the 1960's everything has been going downhill, it will be at least 2150 before we return to our 1950's standards of society, if ever.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Global Utopia? Never.

However one day I think it will be possible, and may well exist in large pockets such as entire towns, in none of our lifetimes though. Utopias may well have existed in the past, but since the 1960's everything has been going downhill, it will be at least 2150 before we return to our 1950's standards of society, if ever.

Sort of assumes the 1950s was the essence of everything good in the world.