Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
No, I think that humanity will go the way of dinosaurs with Utopia being an unattainable dream. But the first step to realizing dreams is to at least have them.
The Indians I were referring to are the Sioux and specifically the Lakota, though I assume all of the tribes in the modern U.S. were free. Yes, they did have direct representation, and it was natural to them, not some radical concept.
So is the Lakota Indians an example of Pre-Greek democracy?

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
No, not only me. Most people are fit to to live beyond a fascist government, with a little education. Most people are not ready for anarchy though.
I'm trying to understand where you are drawing the distinction between who does and doesn't deserve to live in fascism. It seems to be that everyone you agreed with doesn't but everyone you disagree with does. Is this correct?

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
I know! It sounds almost Utopian! If you get the chance you should attend an Indian council just to witness it and learn something about consensus decision making and tribal life.
Having a council make decisions does not infer 100% agreement nor does it infer that a person in power has a mandate from the people who put him/her there that everything they choose is in agreement.

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
Touche. Some by strict party platform ties to social clubs etc. I would say that Utopian societies will have to start kind of reclusively, existing unknown to those who are not ready for Utopia, kind of like how it is now already. It is not that the collapse of the economy and widespread famine are going to usher in Utopia, but the only survivors will be those living in the existing Utopian societies and a few rare survivors who stumble upon a Utopian society and are helped by them. Of course, there will be a rogue military and all kind of dystopian movements going on also, so it is hard to say.
But why assume that these 'societies,' if they even exist today, will be unphased by the collapse of the economy and famine? You seem to be thinking they will be sheltered. Why is that?



Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
This is an example of the point going over your head and you not understanding what I am saying. My whole point is that it is not fascist to ensure the survival of your community from dangerous rogue people who threaten to harm your community. YOU are the one claiming that it is fascist to protect the community from someone who thinks that Utopia means personal freedom without caring about others. I am saying that it is NOT fascist to forbid your children to play with matches.
Of course, if a fascist state exists, it is the fault of the people who let it exist, who give it power over them. If they took back their power they would have to also take back their responsibility.
What is going over my head?
You stated:
Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
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.
What am I incorrectly inferring from such a statement? You believe that some people deserve and should live under fascism specifically those who cannot be responsible for themselves. Children cannot be responsible for themselves, therefore you think children should live under fascist rule. Thus the comment "Obviously you don't have any children" indicating that I have such a negative thought about paternalism, I must not have children because I don't condone it. You have yet to show how the simple act of building on a watershed without dumping chemicals into the water (something you said didn't matter because the bigger issue was the building) is causing actual harm to individuals and I say individuals because you can't hurt a "community." If you were just using it for shorthand and really meant a set of individuals then omit this last point. I can't hurt a community though because it isn't a tangible entity. I can hurt Peter, Paula and Perkins but I can't hurt towns and I did say before that seeking justice against someone who hurt you was just fine and dandy as long as it is proportional to the crime and you don't take up vigilantism like tying people to trees against their will.

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
You don't have to look only to Indian tribes. You can look to the Australian aborigines. See, to us, democracy is a concept. It is a social/political concept that evolved out of not being satisfied with feudalism and monarchy, etc. But before all that, if you take any group of humans and put them in a situation where they have to work together to survive, they will have a direct democracy. The natural human in his natural environment will be happy, free, and democratic.
I think you are correct in thinking that the natural environment of man is happiness and freedom but why assume democratic? Does an individual increase their happiness by entering into a political arena that pits their rights against another and the winner is the one which has the most numbers? And what am I suppose to be looking at for the Australian aborigines? Are they the tribe that pre-date the Greeks in the application of democracy?

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
In the example of the asshole who got tied to a tree, it took us over a week to come to an agreement on what to do with him. Some of the more compassionate ones wanted to free him and hope that he learned his lesson, some of the more angry people wanted to chop his pecker off, others wanted to escort him back to society and turn him in, others didn't want the police involved or even to know about the community, others wanted to keep him tied up and feed him psychedelic drugs in order for him to see how he hurt people etc. Everyone took turns talking, we listened to each other's concerns. We ended up including him in the council. It was very emotional and crazy. He ended up being so remorseful and it healed him. He told us his whole life story and admitted other shameful things he had done before but had not gotten caught. He actually grew a conscience through that week. The woman he violated ended up forgiving him and now he still lives there and now has a wife, kids, and grandkids now.
And you don't think that maybe he told you this because people were threatening to emasculate him, force him to consume hazardous drugs and the fact he was tied to a tree for a week? What a barbaric, uncivilized group of savages.

Quote Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
Anyway, instead of arguing a out Indians why don't you learn about their way of life? Their way of life used to be very Utopian. Especially in the Pacific Northwest!! They didn't even have to be nomadic or agriculture! They had so much leisure time, moreso than most other Indians in the New World.
Yea, you have to show me evidence of such profound leisure time and how they generally give to their 60's. If you want to live in such an environment, live long and prosper.