Division Of Labor

[SavagePostModern]

Since division of labor is responsible for the majority of social inequalities that exist today, wouldn't that mean that less inequalities existed in pre-historic societies and groups where there was no division of labor within past existence?

Inequality in my observation has always existed but it does seem that there is less inequality to be found in precivilized cultures versus civilized ones.

It seems that as civilizations advance and become increasingly more complex the more complex becomes social inequalities.

As civilizations advance and become more complex through exponential growth so too does social inequalites grow even more with them.

http://www.georgecatlin.org/Sioux-War-Council.jpg

[New Tet]

Since division of labor is responsible for the majority of social inequalities that exist today, wouldn't that mean that less inequalities existed in pre-historic societies and groups where there was no division of labor within past existence?

Inequality in my observation has always existed but it does seem that there is less inequality to be found in precivilized cultures versus civilized ones.

It seems that as civilizations advance and become increasingly more complex the more complex becomes social inequalities.

As civilizations advance and become more complex through exponential growth so too does social inequalites grow even more with them.

That's partly because social institutions based on inevitable inequalities tend to lag behind advances.

[red cat]

Since division of labor is responsible for the majority of social inequalities that exist today, wouldn't that mean that less inequalities existed in pre-historic societies and groups where there was no division of labor within past existence?

Inequality in my observation has always existed but it does seem that there is less inequality to be found in precivilized cultures versus civilized ones.

It seems that as civilizations advance and become increasingly more complex the more complex becomes social inequalities.

As civilizations advance and become more complex through exponential growth so too does social inequalites grow even more with them.


At the point where civilization had just started, wasn't the alpha- male the only male who got to mate?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are two divisions of labour. The first one is absolutely necessary: the technical/functional division of labour. People specialize in becoming nurses, school teachers, statisticians, and so forth. The second one, however, isn't (http://matisse.univ-paris1.fr/heterodoxies/heter040519b.pdf):


By social division of labour we mean the stratification of society into those who spend their (working) lives primarily engaged in unskilled, skilled, nurturing, creative, or governing activities. Within each category of activity there are many functional divisions. The abolition of the social division of labour is a necessary condition for the abolition of social classes and the oppression and subordination that go with them. This is perfectly consistent with the existence of a functional division of labour, with people engaging in one or more functional specialism within each category of activity in the course of their working lives. The experience thus gained would contribute to self-development and provide people with the capabilities necessary for effective participation in deliberative decision-making.

[SavagePostModern]

That's partly because social institutions based on inevitable inequalities tend to lag behind advances.

Advances create newer forms of inequality doubling and tripling what existed inequally before previously.

[SavagePostModern]

At the point where civilization had just started, wasn't the alpha- male the only male who got to mate?

There is no proof or evidence to support that assertion.

Certainly that sort of behavior can be found with baboons but I'm not sure if it exists within primates.

I don't believe in present hunter gatherer societies that sort of behavior is pre-dominant in that all males usually have a mate so long as there is a large female population that is present.

[SavagePostModern]

There are two divisions of labour. The first one is absolutely necessary: the technical/functional division of labour. People specialize in becoming nurses, school teachers, statisticians, and so forth. The second one, however, isn't (http://matisse.univ-paris1.fr/heterodoxies/heter040519b.pdf):


How do you plan on going about it?

[Demogorgon]

The first one is absolutely necessary: the technical/functional division of labour.
Perhaps even it is not. Obviously people have to specialise to some extent. That's just life, but over the course of our lives we learn how to do a number of different things. so it should not be so difficult to branch out a bit more. For instance if you and I do two separate jobs and both of us are also capable of doing the other's, then it makes sense for us to share them split our time between the two particularly if one job is more enjoyable or rewarding than the other. Moreover it also makes sense for learning to be built into work so as we can develop an ever greater repertoire of skills. Particularly for those doing the less enjoyable jobs out there, part of their working day should be given over to letting them learn new skills so as they can do more rewarding work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What you're describing here is still Pat Devine's distinctions between the two (and his solution to the "social" division of labour), which I posted on above.

What he means by "functional" is that if some economic activity requires one type of job and another type of job, both of us can't do the same type of job simultaneously. You do one type, and I do the other at that given moment.

[SavagePostModern]

Perhaps even it is not. Obviously people have to specialise to some extent. That's just life, but over the course of our lives we learn how to do a number of different things. so it should not be so difficult to branch out a bit more. For instance if you and I do two separate jobs and both of us are also capable of doing the other's, then it makes sense for us to share them split our time between the two particularly if one job is more enjoyable or rewarding than the other. Moreover it also makes sense for learning to be built into work so as we can develop an ever greater repertoire of skills. Particularly for those doing the less enjoyable jobs out there, part of their working day should be given over to letting them learn new skills so as they can do more rewarding work.

What will you do with those that are deemed unlearnable who are not very well with standardized curriculum?

[SavagePostModern]

What you're describing here is still Pat Devine's distinctions between the two (and his solution to the "social" division of labour), which I posted on above.

What he means by "functional" is that if some economic activity requires one type of job and another type of job, both of us can't do the same type of job simultaneously. You do one type, and I do the other at that given moment.

So tell me how you plan on making everybody equal.

[RGacky3]

Since division of labor is responsible for the majority of social inequalities that exist today,

No, its not division of labor, its the large concentrated capital in a small number of hands.


Inequality in my observation has always existed but it does seem that there is less inequality to be found in precivilized cultures versus civilized ones.

It seems that as civilizations advance and become increasingly more complex the more complex becomes social inequalities.

As civilizations advance and become more complex through exponential growth so too does social inequalites grow even more with them.

Not really, its when the power structures get advanced, thats when social inequalities come it.


So tell me how you plan on making everybody equal.

Thats no ones goal.


Advances create newer forms of inequality doubling and tripling what existed inequally before previously.

Theres no proof that advances in technology, sciences, society or whatever has anything to do with inequality. What there is proof of is that power structures and concentrated capital create inequality.

[Skooma Addict]

Since division of labor is responsible for the majority of social inequalities that exist today, wouldn't that mean that less inequalities existed in pre-historic societies and groups where there was no division of labor within past existence?

True, the division of labor is responsible for some inequality. However, it also greatly increases living standards. By the way, whats wrong with inequality?


Inequality in my observation has always existed but it does seem that there is less inequality to be found in precivilized cultures versus civilized ones.

There was less inequality because they were all poor by todays standards.


It seems that as civilizations advance and become increasingly more complex the more complex becomes social inequalities.

As civilizations advance and become more complex through exponential growth so too does social inequalites grow even more with them.

But there is nothing wrong with inequality.

[Havet]

True, the division of labor is responsible for some inequality. However, it also greatly increases living standards. By the way, whats wrong with inequality?



There was less inequality because they were all poor by todays standards.



But there is nothing wrong with inequality.

There's a difference between natural inequalities and forced upon inequalities. Nobody here is arguing against natural inequalities (like the strength one has, his height, the color of his hair, his prettiness, his physical shape, etc).

[Skooma Addict]

There's a difference between natural inequalities and forced upon inequalities. Nobody here is arguing against natural inequalities (like the strength one has, his height, the color of his hair, his prettiness, his physical shape, etc).

What about inequality of wealth?

[Demogorgon]

What will you do with those that are deemed unlearnable who are not very well with standardized curriculum?
Everyone can learn to one extent or another given the right instruction. Obviously some will be able to diversify more than others, but all can do it to some extent.

[Bud Struggle]

Everyone can learn to one extent or another given the right instruction. Obviously some will be able to diversify more than others, but all can do it to some extent.

And shouldn't those that work harder and learn more and thus contribute more--be rewarded with more? Shouldn't those that diversify more be worth something more than a broom pusher who doesn't really try?

In a Communist world I have loads of sympathy for those that can't do things--and I think they are society's responsibility.

But those that "won't?" They are another matter--Communism or not--they shouldn't be given a free ride...

[Kronos]

And shouldn't those that work harder and learn more and thus contribute more--be rewarded with more? Shouldn't those that diversify more be worth something more than a broom pusher who doesn't really try?

In a Communist world I have loads of sympathy for those that can't do things--and I think they are society's responsibility.

But those that "won't?" They are another matter--Communism or not--they shouldn't be given a free ride...

And the crux of the biscuit. Right-wing politics are inferior on account of the exploitation of the proletarian class to the capitalist class. Left-wing politics are inferior on account of the prevention of private property and wage competition.

In the former, the fruit of the worker's labor is taken by the bourgeois, a class that does not labor itself. In the latter, the incentive and enthusiasm in the work force is lost due to a lack of opportunity to receive greater rewards for one's labor, as well as the loss of the right to own private property.

Commies and capitalists might one day grow up and understand that the extreme center is the only feasible sociopolitical system. State socialism (I won't say the 'F' word, god forbid).

Until then, some of you will keep exploiting, some of you will keep dreaming, and the rest of you will strap on your spiked leather jackets and drop out completely.

I'll be with Zarathustra, watching from atop our mountain. Send a messenger when you finally figure it out.

[Bud Struggle]

And the crux of the biscuit. Right-wing politics are inferior on account of the exploitation of the proletarian class to the capitalist class. Left-wing politics are inferior on account of the prevention of private property and wage competition.

In the former, the fruit of the worker's labor is taken by the bourgeois, a class that does not labor itself. In the latter, the incentive and enthusiasm in the work force is lost due to a lack of opportunity to receive greater rewards for one's labor, as well as the loss of the right to own private property.

Commies and capitalists might one day grow up and understand that the extreme center is the only feasible sociopolitical system. State socialism (I won't say the 'F' word, god forbid).

Until then, some of you will keep exploiting, some of you will keep dreaming, and the rest of you will strap on your spiked leather jackets and drop out completely.

I'll be with Zarathustra, watching from atop our mountain. Send a messenger when you finally figure it out.

But you see who the "hero" of this story is: the individual worker/owner of a sole proprietorship business. He neither exploits others nor does he rely on others to do his part for him. He takes nothing more than he contributes. He makes his own way on the strenth of his own personal accomplishments.

[SavagePostModern]

True, the division of labor is responsible for some inequality. However, it also greatly increases living standards. By the way, whats wrong with inequality?



There was less inequality because they were all poor by todays standards.



But there is nothing wrong with inequality.



True, the division of labor is responsible for some inequality.

Most social inequality in civilization is derived from the division of labor.

Of course there are natural inequalities but they are few and wide in between compared to the many create inequalities of the civilized kind.


However, it also greatly increases living standards.

Living standards that exists on the backs of others.



By the way, whats wrong with inequality?



Nothing. I merely like illustrating how vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive human beings are towards each other.

I look at civilization as a cruel human sort of zoo.

( Do not feed the caged animals.)



There was less inequality because they were all poor by todays standards.


Prehistoric man was not poor because he had no conception of poverty.



But there is nothing wrong with inequality.


Never said there was. If you can tolerate and accept social inequality as a given of humanity then you can also accept violence along with every horrific malice that comes with it.

( I think all laws should be destroyed.)

[SavagePostModern]

Everyone can learn to one extent or another given the right instruction. Obviously some will be able to diversify more than others, but all can do it to some extent.

Not really. You assume everyone has the same exact compacity to learn things or acquire skills.

So what are you going to do with those who cannot fit into standardized forms of curriculum?

I guess they'll just have to grow up being content in being someone elses servant, huh?

( Slavery is freedom.)

[SavagePostModern]

And shouldn't those that work harder and learn more and thus contribute more--be rewarded with more? Shouldn't those that diversify more be worth something more than a broom pusher who doesn't really try?

In a Communist world I have loads of sympathy for those that can't do things--and I think they are society's responsibility.

But those that "won't?" They are another matter--Communism or not--they shouldn't be given a free ride...


And shouldn't those that work harder and learn more and thus contribute more--be rewarded with more?

That right there is the crux of social inequality where from that perspective all social inequality of civilization derives.

The specialists, wealthy, and upper classes always feel they are special in self worship of themselves where they feel they are entitled to more than everybody else.



Shouldn't those that diversify more be worth something more than a broom pusher who doesn't really try?


"Those low breed filthy lower class workers don't deserve much nor should they be entitled to much of anything in comparison to the much prized specialists."

"That's right!"

"They should only be entitled to a inferior compensation and social access in that they are themselves inferior beings."

"The lower classes exist only to serve, labor, and toil for the chosen specialists and superiors of humanity to be taken advantage of."

( Cheering in the background.)

[SavagePostModern]

No, its not division of labor, its the large concentrated capital in a small number of hands.



Not really, its when the power structures get advanced, thats when social inequalities come it.



Thats no ones goal.



Theres no proof that advances in technology, sciences, society or whatever has anything to do with inequality. What there is proof of is that power structures and concentrated capital create inequality.


its the large concentrated capital in a small number of hands.

Which only comes about through the division of labor.



Not really, its when the power structures get advanced, thats when social inequalities come it.


In prehistory everyone made their own tools.

In prehistory everyone made their own shelters, crafts, and clothes.

In prehistory everyone shared food within the tribe where noone was excluded from sharing resources within the tribe so long as they contributed somthing to the survival of the tribe.

In prehistory life revolved around gathering food, resources, and water.

Nobody needed a diploma, degree,p.h.d, or doctorate to partake in these simple activities of simple survival.

( In prehistory everyone had a sort of individual independence not to mention a independent individual autonomy.)

Than the agricultural revolution came which marked the beginning of civilization and consequently the mark of the beginning of the division of labor.

Out of the agricultural revolution came specialists through the division of labor which began the long road of social inequality.

Person One: "What's that guy over there know about farming, agriculture, and irrigation?"

Person Two: "Nothing I believe."

Person One: "He is unskilled and lacks the wealth to become self independent within our society."

Person One: "What a inferior low breed of human." "That's alright I got a job for him where he can shovel cow manure repeatively everyday where he will become my servant where I will only pay him two drachmas every week."

Person One: "If he refuses to be my servant he will starve to death by malnutrition or be ostracized from our wonderful liberty worshipping community."

Person One: "If he puts up a fight or rebellion we can always call on the local magistrate where we can have him dragged to be executed in the public community square."

Person Two: "We can always make him our slave."

Person One: "Great idea."

Person One: "Go get my whip."


Now let's look at today's attitude of specialists in our post modern global market.

Person One: "What's that guy over there know about when it concerns mathmatics, technology, mechanics, and technical systems?"

Person Two: "Nothing I believe."

Person One: "What a low breed inferior human being." "He is unskilled and lacks the wealth to become self independent within our society."

Person One: "That's alright fortunate for him I own several mcdonalds franchises where he can flip hamburgers daily for me where he will be compensated with a inferior wage by today's standards of living being that he is viewed as a disposable inferior human being."

Person One: "If he refuses to be a public servant of the greater collective he will starve to death by malnutrition or be ostracized from our wonderful liberty worshipping community."

Person One: "If he puts up a fight or rebellion against the greater collective we can always call on the local police just one 911 click away on the telephone where we can have him incarcerated."

Person Two: "Capital idea."

"Resistance on his part is futile."

"He must assimilate and conform in a submission of obedience towards the greater collective mass."



( And so not alot has changed ever since the agricultural revolution.)


Thats no ones goal.

Well this being a dominantly communist and socialistic website you could of fooled me.


Theres no proof that advances in technology, sciences, society or whatever has anything to do with inequality.

Yeah there is......tons actually...........

With a selection process that emphasizes specialists in a advance society that is specialist oriented there comes to be many prejudices within created expectations, standards,imperatives, and directives through economical practices.




What there is proof of is that power structures and concentrated capital create inequality.


Which really comes out of advanced complex technological societies that revolve around specialization.

[Skooma Addict]

Most social inequality in civilization is derived from the division of labor.

Of course there are natural inequalities but they are few and wide in between compared to the many create inequalities of the civilized kind.

I would not say natural inequalities are few and far between.



Living standards that exists on the backs of others.

Nope. The living standards of everyone increases.



Nothing. I merely like illustrating how vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive human beings are towards each other.

Except the existence of inequality does not demonstrate how vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive humans are towards each other.


Prehistoric man was not poor because he had no conception of poverty.


How do you know? But anyways, I said he was poor by todays standards.


Never said there was. If you can tolerate and accept social inequality as a given of humanity then you can also accept violence along with every horrific malice that comes with it.


Yes, humans can be violent.



( I think all laws should be destroyed.)


Then new laws would form.

[SavagePostModern]

I would not say natural inequalities are few and far between.



Nope. The living standards of everyone increases.



Except the existence of inequality does not demonstrate how vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive humans are towards each other.



How do you know? But anyways, I said he was poor by todays standards.



Yes, humans can be violent.



Then new laws would form.




I would not say natural inequalities are few and far between.


In prehistory they were.

There really was no necessity to fight over much in prehistory in that resources were readily abundant amongst nature for anyone to take for themselves since in prehistory there was no sense of currency.

Of course tribes would occasionly fight over territory, sexual mates, and amongst themselves but nowhere near in comparison to how civilized cultures do.

And then of course prehistoric people had full individual independence of themselves along with a genuine sense of autonomy which made them even less prone towards social inequality.


Nope. The living standards of everyone increases.

No it doesn't especially since the standard of living is tied into income.

The only way the living standards would increase for everybody equally would be if everyone had the same income.

( Which doesn't exist anywhere.)



Except the existence of inequality does not demonstrate how vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive humans are towards each other.


What do you mean by that statement?


How do you know?

It's called anthropology.



But anyways, I said he was poor by todays standards.


Well that is irrelevant in that prehistoric peoples had nothing to do with our present shift of standards.



Then new laws would form.


The only law I respect is that might makes right.

[Skooma Addict]

There really was no necessity to fight over much in prehistory in that resources were readily abundant amongst nature for anyone to take for themselves since in prehistory there was no sense of currency.

Of course tribes would occasionly fight over territory, sexual mates, and amongst themselves but nowhere near in comparison to how civilized cultures do.

And then of course prehistoric people had full individual independence of themselves along with a genuine sense of autonomy which made them even less prone towards social inequality.

Life was brutal, short, and difficult. If there were fewer fights, it is because there were far fewer people. Imagine if there were 6 billion people living in prehistorical times. I cannot imagine how much violence there would be.

Also people were less prone towards social inequality because they were all poor.


No it doesn't especially since the standard of living is tied into income.

The division of labor allows for the real wage of everyone to increase.



The only way the living standards would increase for everybody would be if everyone had the same income.

So if everyone's income were equivalent to that of 10 dollars a year, living standards would increase?


What do you mean by that statement?

Just because there is inequality, that alone does not mean humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other.


It's called anthropology.

That didn't answer my question.


Well that is irrelevant in that prehistoric peoples had nothing to do with our present shift of standards.

Oh, well they were still dirt poor by today's standards. If your chaos anarchy were to become a reality, it would affect todays people, and todays people would feel dirt poor. So they would work together to better their terrible condition. This is why your Chaos Anarchy will never last.


The only law I respect is that might makes right.

Do you literally believe that? Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?

[SavagePostModern]

Life was brutal, short, and difficult. If there were fewer fights, it is because there were far fewer people. Imagine if there were 6 billion people living in prehistorical times. I cannot imagine how much violence there would be.

Also people were less prone towards social inequality because they were all poor.



The division of labor allows for the real wage of everyone to increase.



So if everyone's income were equivalent to that of 10 dollars a year, living standards would increase?



Just because there is inequality, that alone does not mean humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other.



That didn't answer my question.



Oh, well they were still dirt poor by today's standards. If your chaos anarchy were to become a reality, it would affect todays people, and todays people would feel dirt poor. So they would work together to better their terrible condition. This is why your Chaos Anarchy will never last.



Do you literally believe that? Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?


Life was brutal, short, and difficult.

Indeed. Who wants to live forever? I certainly don't.

Life and survival is savage.


If there were fewer fights, it is because there were far fewer people.

Exactly although certainly there is more to it than that beyond population density alone that accounts for the less infighting in those times.




Imagine if there were 6 billion people living in prehistorical times.

I cannot imagine how much violence there would be.


I agree that overpopulation leads to over competition which only leads to more infighting.

However since there wasn't six billion people in prehistoric times your point is irrelevant but ironically only proves my point of how complex advance technological societies create even more social inequality than what there was previously in our prehistoric beginnings.




Also people were less prone towards social inequality because they were all poor.


Your using a modern conception that didn't even exist back then.



The division of labor allows for the real wage of everyone to increase.


What are you talking about?



So if everyone's income were equivalent to that of 10 dollars a year, living standards would increase?


It depends on how much ten dollars is worth in your scenario. ( laughs.)


Just because there is inequality, that alone does not mean humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other.

Yeah it does actually. Human beings treat each other rather horribly which as a consequence causes all sorts of conflicts between each other.




That didn't answer my question.


Anthropologists have a effective account of prehistoric times by their study and observation of present existing hunter gatherer tribes.


Oh, well they were still dirt poor by today's standards.

Again you are using a concept that was unknown in prehistory.



If your chaos anarchy were to become a reality, it would affect todays people, and todays people would feel dirt poor.


Only because post-modern humans have come to believe they are entitled to more of everything.


So they would work together to better their terrible condition.

What's so terrible about prehistoric people or hunter gatherers?




This is why your Chaos Anarchy will never last.


Whatever............

All I have to say is that all you technological futurists will never fulfill the creation of your technological promiseland either.


Do you literally believe that?

Yes I do.



Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?


Yes.

[Skooma Addict]

Indeed. Who wants to live forever? I certainly don't.

Life and survival is savage.


I wouldn't want to live forever. But I would like to live a long and healthy life.



Exactly although certainly there is more to it than that beyond population density alone that accounts for the less infighting in those times.

Maybe, maybe not.



I agree that overpopulation leads to over competition which only leads to more infighting.

However since there wasn't six billion people in prehistoric times your point is irrelevant but ironically only proves my point of how complex advance technological societies create even more social inequality than what there was previously in our prehistoric beginnings.

I don't think we currently have overpopulation. But my point was not irrelevant because if there were 6 billion people in prehistoric times, there would be far more bloodshed. So the main reason prehistoric people didn't fight as often was due to a lower population density, and not because of the nature of prehistoric man.



Your using a modern conception that didn't even exist back then.

Cool, but I am still correct.



It depends on how much ten dollars is worth in your scenario. ( laughs.)

In my scenario, people earned an annual income equivalent to 10 dollars today. You claimed that living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. But you were wrong, do you see why?


Yeah it does actually. Human beings treat each other rather horribly which as a consequence causes all sorts of conflicts between each other.

All you did was repeat yourself. As I said before, the exisance of inequality alone does not mean that human beings treat each other rather horribly which as a consequence causes all sorts of conflicts between each other.


Anthropologists have a effective account of prehistoric times by their study and observation of present existing hunter gatherer tribes.

You still didn't answer my question. Can you show me a study saying that prehistoric man had no conception of poverty?


Again you are using a concept that was unknown in prehistory.


So? Whether or not prehistoric man understood the concept of poverty is irrelevant.


Only because post-modern humans have come to believe they are entitled to more of everything.

Or maybe because it is natural to wish to improve ones living conditions. But the important point is that people want to improve their condition.


What's so terrible about prehistoric people or hunter gatherers?

I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society because of the poverty, low living standards, and brutal lifestyle.


Whatever............

All I have to say is that all you technological futurists will never fulfill the creation of your technological promiseland either.

I'm glad that you realize your Chaos anarchy would never last. Also, I have no idea what a technological futurist is...


Yes I do.

Yes.


So then you are not a nihilist. Also, can you explain why an action is right only if it is backed by force? What if two opposing claims are backed by an equal amount of force? Which one is right?

[SavagePostModern]

I wouldn't want to live forever. But I would like to live a long and healthy life.



Maybe, maybe not.



I don't think we currently have overpopulation. But my point was not irrelevant because if there were 6 billion people in prehistoric times, there would be far more bloodshed. So the main reason prehistoric people didn't fight as often was due to a lower population density, and not because of the nature of prehistoric man.



Cool, but I am still correct.



In my scenario, people earned an annual income equivalent to 10 dollars today. You claimed that living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. But you were wrong, do you see why?



All you did was repeat yourself. As I said before, the exisance of inequality alone does not mean that human beings treat each other rather horribly which as a consequence causes all sorts of conflicts between each other.



You still didn't answer my question. Can you show me a study saying that prehistoric man had no conception of poverty?



So? Whether or not prehistoric man understood the concept of poverty is irrelevant.



Or maybe because it is natural to wish to improve ones living conditions. But the important point is that people want to improve their condition.



I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society because of the poverty, low living standards, and brutal lifestyle.



I'm glad that you realize your Chaos anarchy would never last. Also, I have no idea what a technological futurist is...



So then you are not a nihilist. Also, can you explain why an action is right only if it is backed by force? What if two opposing claims are backed by an equal amount of force? Which one is right?




But I would like to live a long and healthy life.

Life is unfair and people are entitled to nothing.

People are only entitled to that which they can take for themselves.

You think you and others are entitled to somthing whereas I don't.


I don't think we currently have overpopulation.

I do and I think technology is a factor in bringing about.


But my point was not irrelevant because if there were 6 billion people in prehistoric times, there would be far more bloodshed.

It's irrelevant to history because it never played out that way.



So the main reason prehistoric people didn't fight as often was due to a lower population density,

and not because of the nature of prehistoric man.


I would say it's both.

Modern people seem to have an inability to say that prehistoric people had more individual independence and autonomy than they themselves have because to do so would require them admitting that their modifications of themselves along with their enviroment through technology and social engineering has only caused them to cage themselves by their own hands.



Cool, but I am still correct.


How so?




In my scenario, people earned an annual income equivalent to 10 dollars today.


Let's use a scenario where everybody earns $50,000.00 dollars every year.



You claimed that living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. But you were wrong, do you see why?


Explain yourself.


All you did was repeat yourself. As I said before, the exisance of inequality alone does not mean that human beings treat each other rather horribly which as a consequence causes all sorts of conflicts between each other.

Social inequality only magnifies what human nature really is.

How can you even deny this? Your wishful thinking about human nature is naive, unrealistic, and shocking.............



You still didn't answer my question. Can you show me a study saying that prehistoric man had no conception of poverty?



For starters............


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ZFQTTPTGL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://scrapbook.citizen-citizen.com/photos/uncategorized/thegreattransformation.jpg


So? Whether or not prehistoric man understood the concept of poverty is irrelevant

What do you mean by saying that?



Or maybe because it is natural to wish to improve ones living conditions. But the important point is that people want to improve their condition.


What does it mean to improve one's condition?

Why humanity believes it is privileged and entitled to so much in existence over all other living organisms or the rest of existence is beyond my knowing.


I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society because of the poverty,

They had no conception of poverty.


low living standards,

There were no standards.



and brutal lifestyle.


Life is brutal, and?




I'm glad that you realize your Chaos anarchy would never last.


Actually the sort of natural chaos I speak of was the norm for several thousand years for human beings before the advent of the agricultural revolution and the creation of civilization as we know it today.

Human beings once lived in the chaotic anarchy I speak of in the dawn of existence that lasted several thousand years before the advent civilization.

It lasted for pretty long period of time.



Also, I have no idea what a technological futurist is...


It's a person who believes that there is some sort of technological promiseland in the future that will be fulfilled as humanity's way of having cosmic salvation unto themselves where eventually humans conquer all of existence through technology creating themselves under the image as some fabled technological divine mass that almost seems to stem from sort of mythological metanarrative of their own creation.


So then you are not a nihilist.

What are you talking about now?


Also, can you explain why an action is right only if it is backed by force?

Where are you getting at?



What if two opposing claims are backed by an equal amount of force? Which one is right?

I'm not even understanding you.

[Skooma Addict]

Life is unfair and people are entitled to nothing.

People are only entitled to that which they can take for themselves.

You think you and others are entitled to somthing whereas I don't.

What do I think I am entitled to?


I do and I think technology is a factor in bringing about.

There is currently unused land. Overpopulation would occur when all of the worlds land cannot support the worlds population.


It's irrelevant to history because it never played out that way.

I never claimed it was relevant to history. It is relevant in the sense that it helps explain why there was less conflict in prehistorical times.


Let's use a scenario where everybody earns $50,000.00 dollars every year.


No, you claimed that living standards will go up if everyone earned the same income. But this is not necessarily true, so you are wrong.


Social inequality only magnifies what human nature really is.

How can you even deny this? Your wishful thinking about human nature is naive, unrealistic, and shocking.............

You have completely failed to explain how the existence of social inequality proves that " humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other."


What does it mean to improve one's condition?

To substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs.


They had no conception of poverty.

Even if they didn't, I do. Since I understand the concept of poverty, I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society.


Actually the sort of natural chaos I speak of was the norm for several thousand years for human beings before the advent of the agricultural revolution and the creation of civilization as we know it today.

Human beings once lived in the chaotic anarchy I speak of in the dawn of existence that lasted several thousand years before the advent civilization.

It lasted for pretty long period of time.

Except modern humans know how to farm. So your Chaos anarchy would never last. It is doomed to fail.


It's a person who believes that there is some sort of technological promiseland in the future that will be fulfilled as humanity's way of having cosmic salvation unto themselves where eventually humans conquer all of existence through technology creating themselves under the image as some fabled technological divine mass that almost seems to stem from sort of mythological metanarrative of their own creation.

Then I'm not a technological futurist.


What are you talking about now?

You said that what makes an action right or wrong is whether or not it is backed by force. Since you believe certain actions are morally right and morally wrong, you are not a nihilist.


Where are you getting at?

I'm not even understanding you.

They are simple questions. Why can't you answer them?

[SavagePostModern]

What do I think I am entitled to?



There is currently unused land. Overpopulation would occur when all of the worlds land cannot support the worlds population.



I never claimed it was relevant to history. It is relevant in the sense that it helps explain why there was less conflict in prehistorical times.



No, you claimed that living standards will go up if everyone earned the same income. But this is not necessarily true, so you are wrong.



You have completely failed to explain how the existence of social inequality proves that " humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other."



To substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs.



Even if they didn't, I do. Since I understand the concept of poverty, I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society.



Except modern humans know how to farm. So your Chaos anarchy would never last. It is doomed to fail.



Then I'm not a technological futurist.



You said that what makes an action right or wrong is whether or not it is backed by force. Since you believe certain actions are morally right and morally wrong, you are not a nihilist.



They are simple questions. Why can't you answer them?




What do I think I am entitled to?


I thought already stated what I think people are entitled to..............



People are only entitled to that which they can take for themselves.



I never claimed it was relevant to history. It is relevant in the sense that it helps explain why there was less conflict in prehistorical times.

Explained in what way?




No, you claimed that living standards will go up if everyone earned the same income.

But this is not necessarily true, so you are wrong.


Your question was a trick question because instead of starting out with somthing like $50,000.00 you started with a minimum of $10.00 however being that this analogy of ours is imaginative what if that $10.00 equalled out to be $50,000.00?

( Laughs.)

Your clever I'll give you that..............

What I was alluding to is that the standards of living only goes up for those that make the most amount of wealth where everybody below a certain level doesn't benefit from it at all.



You have completely failed to explain how the existence of social inequality proves that " humans are vicious, hypocritical, selfish and destructive towards each other."



Isn't it obvious? Social inequality could only exist in a existence where human beings are vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other.......geesh..........


To substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory state of affairs.

That's interesting considering satisfaction is never fulfilled equally for everyone.



Even if they didn't, I do. Since I understand the concept of poverty, I would not want to live in a hunter gatherer society.



And so you would rush to judgement about hunter gatherers viewing their lives as miserable and inferior even when they do not view themselves to be in any immanent harm.



Except modern humans know how to farm. So your Chaos anarchy would never last. It is doomed to fail.


There you go on yet again thinking to yourself that civilization was preordained and inevitable.

I look at civilization as a random accident that just happened. ( If not a random tragedy.)


Then I'm not a technological futurist.

How would you define yourself then?

I'm a anarchist who despises civilization and the established collective authority.


You said that what makes an action right or wrong is whether or not it is backed by force.

Your confusing semantics here. One man's right is another man's wrong whereas one man's wrong is another man's right.

What is certain is that all social order is ruled by fear, violence, and coercion or what you describe as force.




Since you believe certain actions are morally right and morally wrong, you are not a nihilist.



Points to previous post. Don't be confused with semantics.



They are simple questions. Why can't you answer them?


Let's see how this round plays out.

[Skooma Addict]

You said I thought I was entitled to something, while you do not think you are entitled to anything....


You think you and others are entitled to somthing whereas I don't.

Although, I think these two statements contradict each other.



You think you and others are entitled to somthing whereas I don't.

People are only entitled to that which they can take for themselves.

See the contradiction?


Explained in what way?

Do you know what the word "explain" means?


Your question was a trick question because instead of starting out with somthing like $50,000.00 you started with a minimum of $10.00 however being that this analogy of ours is imaginative what if that $10.00 equalled out to be $50,000.00?


I didn't ask a trick question. You said living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. If everyone earned an income that was not life sustainable, their living standards would go down even though everyone is earning an equal income. So your wrong.


Isn't it obvious? Social inequality could only exist in a existence where human beings are vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other.......geesh..........

It is not obvious. You have repeated yourself yet again. I am saying social inequality has nothing to do with humans being "vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other."



And so you would rush to judgement about hunter gatherers viewing their lives as miserable and inferior even when they do not view themselves to be in any immanent harm.


I don't know how you know what hunter gatherers thought. But I gave you the reasons why I wouldn't want to live in a hunter gatherer society.


There you go on yet again thinking to yourself that civilization was preordained and inevitable.

I look at civilization as a random accident that just happened. ( If not a random tragedy.)

As I said before, civilization is the result of voluntary exchange and capital accumulation. Both voluntary exchange and capital accumulation occur due to the fact that humans always attempt to better their current state of affairs. So civilization was anything but random.


How would you define yourself then?

Anarcho-capitalist


Your confusing semantics here. One man's right is another man's wrong whereas one man's wrong is another man's right.

No, I asked...


Do you literally believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up?

and you said...



Yes.

You can't have it both ways. So are you a nihilist, or aren't you? If you are, then you do not believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up.

[SavagePostModern]

You said I thought I was entitled to something, while you do not think you are entitled to anything....



Although, I think these two statements contradict each other.



See the contradiction?



Do you know what the word "explain" means?



I didn't ask a trick question. You said living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. If everyone earned an income that was not life sustainable, their living standards would go down even though everyone is earning an equal income. So your wrong.



It is not obvious. You have repeated yourself yet again. I am saying social inequality has nothing to do with humans being "vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other."



I don't know how you know what hunter gatherers thought. But I gave you the reasons why I wouldn't want to live in a hunter gatherer society.



As I said before, civilization is the result of voluntary exchange and capital accumulation. Both voluntary exchange and capital accumulation occur due to the fact that humans always attempt to better their current state of affairs. So civilization was anything but random.



Anarcho-capitalist



No, I asked...



and you said...



You can't have it both ways. So are you a nihilist, or aren't you? If you are, then you do not believe that what makes an action right is the amount of force backing it up.

I like how you like to twist and construe everything I say to mean somthing else as form of debate.............


Although, I think these two statements contradict each other.



See the contradiction?

No I do not.


Do you know what the word "explain" means?

Hey if your not going to explain yourself..........I'm not going to even waste my time.



I didn't ask a trick question. You said living standards would increase if everyone earned the same income. If everyone earned an income that was not life sustainable, their living standards would go down even though everyone is earning an equal income. So your wrong.


I meant a equal income that was life sustainable. I've noticed how you have conveniently ignored some of my other previous replies towards you.




If everyone earned an income that was not life sustainable, their living standards would go down even though everyone is earning an equal income. So your wrong.


It was a trick question.


I am saying social inequality has nothing to do with humans being "vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other."

Such bullshit. You don't even bother explaining your reasoning either rather conveniently.


I don't know how you know what hunter gatherers thought.

I read studies of the subject.



But I gave you the reasons why I wouldn't want to live in a hunter gatherer society.


Well great.........you have an opinion on the matter.


As I said before, civilization is the result of voluntary exchange

I notice how you conveniently ignore all the involuntary servitude practices that goes on within civilization in order to make civilization look idealistic.



and capital accumulation.

In the hands of the upper classes.


Both voluntary exchange and capital accumulation occur due to the fact that humans always attempt to better their current state of affairs.

State of affairs that are never benefited to everybody equally but only to a select few...............





So civilization was anything but random.


If you say so.




Anarcho-capitalist


What a oxy-moron.

[Skooma Addict]

No I do not.


Well, then I guess I have to spell it out for you. Your two statements that contradict each other are....



You think you and others are entitled to somthing whereas I don't.

People are only entitled to that which they can take for themselves.

You claim that people are entitled to nothing, while at the same time you say that people are entitled to that which they can take for themselves. Which one is it?


Hey if your not going to explain yourself..........I'm not going to even waste my time.

I don't see how why this is so difficult to understand. The main reason why prehistoric people didn't fight as often as modern humans is due to a lower population density. If there were 6 billion prehistoric people on living on earth at the same time, they would fight more often than we do now.



I meant a equal income that was life sustainable.


Is that what you meant? Well, your still wrong. Everyone could be wealthy, but some wealthier than others. Or everyone could be equally poor. In which example are living standards higher? The first one.


It was a trick question.

Lol, no it wasn't. You were just flat out wrong.


Such bullshit. You don't even bother explaining your reasoning either rather conveniently.

There can be social inequality without humans being being "vicious, hypocritical, selfish, and destructive towards each other." Someone could develop a new medicine that cures HIV and then sell it and become a millionaire.


Well great.........you have an opinion on the matter.

Well yea, you asked.


I notice how you conveniently ignore all the involuntary servitude practices that goes on within civilization in order to make civilization look idealistic.


Civilization can occur with and without involuntary servitude. Also, you make the prehistoric lifestyle look idealistic.



In the hands of the upper classes.

Wrong. Many people accumulate capital.