Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I explain it by humanity refusing to recognize their transcendent nature, and instead insisting on living according their dumb animal nature. All the islands are doomed so long as this continues. Regardless of their government ideology.
What would anything much longer than 5 years reveal that can't be revealed in just 5 years or even less, like 3 or 4 years?
Can you elaborate on this?
I agree that political liberty would be low with the socialists, and I would agree that political liberty would be high with the libertarians (at least higher than socialists, anyways); however, I don't see how politics can mean anything in an anarchist society, since by definition, politics means that there is a state and government, and with anarchism, there is no state/government.
Do you think the socialists will allow for any private property ownership at all?
Same with the concept of politics - how can anyone have any property in an anarchist society? I don't see how this is possible.
Ok, good point - so should they just permitted to harm each other and finish each other off, until there's one left standing?
)
It seems like you're complaining about something analogous to X being 4 if X is an integer between 3 and 5.
I think an experiment like this would be very helpful in determining whether or not the fundamental principles behind each system are any good.
Yes; you're not the first to point this out. That's a real-world issue & it isn't an issue for this thread's thought experiment.
Sure, but only opinions about the results & outcomes can be made about a thought experiment. Real-world experiment would have to be carried out in order to get factual results & outcomes.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Children. They wouldn't be volunteers, and they wouldn't have a political philosophy from the get-go. Anarchism doesn't do very well with children, and children don't do well with anarchism.
The economic goals are the same for all populations (get an economy running) and the methods are pretty obvious (build shelter for all, secure water and food for all, do that cooperatively). Ideological differences wouldn't play a role before that is achieved, after about two years.
Politics also means policies. Even your unrealistic Stirner-type anarchists would probably agree on a few, like not murdering each other.
Yes, just on a small scale.
The same as with politics, mutual, universal agreement to not contest property as long as it doesn't conflict with an other's freedom.
I didn't say that there would be a lack of democracy and infrastructure on the socialist island, but there wouldn't be equilibrium on the socialist island because socialism doesn't have this trait, and that's what the socialism island volunteers would desire as supporters of the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
I don't agree with this.
This is not plausible; you're reading and posting on this online forum, which means you have an internet connection, which means you're not living in complete isolation from the rest of the internet-connected world, and maybe you have some family and friends that are living in complete isolation from the rest of the internet-connected world, but not your coworkers and neighbors.
It isn't (necessarily) relevant to them; you're attacking a strawman.
That's correct, but this is just more strawman attacking. You and I are both in same sort of society of different competing political ideologies and their consequences, and because of this, it's difficult if not impossible to objectively and impartially figure things out in such a mixture of political ideologies.
Yeah, it might be necessary to resort to something like this, but my anticipation is that it wouldn't be necessary to start off like this. The reason I'm proposing that there's an initial supply of abundance is to let the experiment start off with things being in good condition to let each one maintain that good condition or deplete; it's also to give the volunteers some slack to settle into the experiment so they won't want to bail out; they're not going to be trapped like prisoners on the islands IRL. LOL
Well, the reason I'd prefer not to take this approach is because starting off with a group of 200 is too close to Dunbar's number, and that may have an effect of skewing results away from something that simulates a real world consisting of billions of people. I chose 1,000 volunteers because I think it's big enough to be far enough from Dunbar's number, and I don't want to go beyond 1,000 volunteers because it just makes things more difficult in terms of finding volunteers and funding for things like transporting the volunteers, providing initial resources for them, etc. Don't forget that it's a total of 3,000 volunteers, which makes it 3 times as difficult and expensive.
I basically covered this in this post:
Yes, if we're talking about a monotonic political spectrum with socialism (big government) on one extreme (on the left) and anarchism (no government) on the other extreme (on the right); both of those US major political parties are far to the left, but what does that have to do with this thread/experiment/poll? I make no mention of either of those political parties in this thread.
This experiment wouldn't be necessary if humanity didn't refuse that, and by claiming that the islands are doomed, it seems you're claiming that humanity is doomed, but I see no reason to believe that.
Wrong again.
Capitalism is the only system in which a centralized state is not necessary. Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange. There is no need to add anything else to the definition of capitalism.
All which can exist absent of a state… yes, even property rights do not need a state to exist. You believe in the big lie that the State is necessary that the State itself perpetuates in order to keep people advocating for it’s existence
We're not dead, yet. So there is always hope. But we are running out of time. Our stupidity remains intractable while our ability to destroy things keeps increasing. There is really only one way for that to end. We are either going to learn to rise above our dumb animal thinking, or we will destroy ourselves (as we would deserve). So far we do not appear to be inclined to learn anything. But people surprise me all the time.
You're simply wrong. None of those concepts are entirely mutually exclusive and have often been used together to identify specific groupings throughout history. The idea that libertarianism is simply some middle ground between socialism and anarchy is certainly wrong. It would be perfectly viable to have moderate systems within the concepts of socialism or anarchy and have extreme systems within the concept of libertarianism.
None of the three terms describe a system though, they describe a concept. A system, even a simplistic abstract one for a thought experiment, needs more than just a singular concept (even if you define all other aspects of the systems to be the same).
Have you considered the possibility that, if multiple people are challenging you on this point, it could be you who is incorrect?
I don't disagree, but you still need more detail about how the systems would be set up and run to reach any meaningful conclusions. Otherwise, you're just basing them on your preconceived ideas about the concepts.
I agree. But I think that was more to the point. As there are various ways that a society of humans might choose to systematize their ethical, moral and social goals once they've been identified. Socialism, for example, can be implemented via a whole range of control mechanisms including anything from democratic communism to representational democracy to political and economic hybrids to who knows what. The goal, however, still being that the people being effected by the decisions and laws being made get a say in the making of those laws and decisions. But HOW they get their say can vary widely. As also might be their recourse when disagreements arise.
You're as wrong about capitalism as @anotherneil is about anarchism. You're describing a free market economy, which is only one aspect of (idealized) capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, simply by investment, and the subsequent collection of the proceeds. Money magically making money.
In the anarcho-capitalist literature I have read/am reading, the authors equivocate “free market economy” and “capitalism” with capitalism meaning nothing more than voluntary exchange. So that’s why I say what I say it’s just what I have learned in books. I’ll change my wordage for this board as I mean what you describe as a “free market economy”. I feel like that is self describing too and doesn’t have all the baggage as “capitalism”.
I'm fine with "anarcho-capitalist" as long as I know as what you define it. I don't cling dogmatically to textbook definitions, but sometimes it confuses me when the definition in my head contradicts the definition used by someone else. And often the definition doesn't capture the full meaning of the usage.