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

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.

I have an idea I'd like to throw at you guys

The working title is Progressive Democracy or Localized Democracy, essentially I think one of the problems with democracy on such a wide scale is it creates a disconnection between voters and their representatives. So lets start at the basics: town hall. Eliminate mayors and legislatures and set up town councils where anyone who shows up gets a voice and a vote. Towns that are too large can be subdivided into multiple neighborhoods until it's small enough that people aren't overcrowded. The rules are simple: They sit in a circle, everyone waits for a long period of time in silence between speakers (Something we should have learned from the Native Americans), and everyone's vote is equal. A representative is elected to meet in the next largest collective, which in most cases would be a county but in more populated areas would be a town hall. The same rules apply as before, though I haven't completely decided how to make things fair population wise. Perhaps an electorate system could take place where each person represented counts as a vote in the hands of their councilor. Anyways, a representative is elected out this council, as well, and he meets in the next highest order and so on. You could have national presidents to vote on but I don't see the point, I think the guy your voting on should be someone you know and can have time to get to know. It should be someone your community trusts to represent your views when it comes to matters that concern the area, and to vote the right way when it comes to picking the right guy to meet in the next higher order. All voting would need to be completely transparent and identifiable by the lower orders.

Everything in society seems to be top-down: CEOs and owners control companies and pick everyone that decides everything and they pick all the employees, and we supposedly elect individuals that decide everything and fill government with people they think is best. I find the best results come from listening to the individual parts. For instance if you want your company to run more efficiently you don't hire some outside observer with a degree in bullshit, you ask your experienced employees for ideas and then listen to them. The best way to understand what sort of diet and lifestyle is best for you is not by reading a bunch of books on the subject and following other people's philosophies, it's by listening to your body and responding to its needs.

Human beings still unconsciously hold this concept that they are intelligent brains trapped within animal bodies. Most of us still don't understand the connection between mind and body. In much the same way, our government does not consider us to be worth listening to, either.

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.

So what is your vision of a Utopia?
Do you think that we already live in a Utopia?
It isn't about political systems, ie. capitalism vs. fascism, regarding the right to build a house in the watershed. And yes, the very act of building a house in the watershed does harm people, not just the chemicals. Like I said, it doesn't matter what system of government a country has right now, they still don't allow one to live in the watersheds because it is just dirty.
As far as the man that was tied to a tree. We knew he was guilty, he knew he was guilty, we knew he knew, he knew we knew, and we all knew that the other knew that we knew. The only thing to do to protect ourselves was tie him to a tree until we could think of what to do with him. You must understand that this was about thirty miles from the nearest road. This isn't fascism, this is protecting the women and children. Any family person would do the same.

As far as a family is concerned, you would let your children do what they want unless they are a danger to themselves or another. Since they may not have the knowledge to keep themselves safe, you tell them not to cross the road by themselves, or not to touch the stove because it is hot. THis isn't fascism.

The chief does not sit there giving orders. A chief never tells anybody else what to do. The whole tribe decides what to do. The chief leads the battles also. The chief is not an elite. The whole tribe knows that in order to survive they must follow the buffalo. The whole tribe has a council and the council lasts until every single person participating agrees. It isn't even a majority rule, it has to be every single person in agreement. And everybody in the tribe participates, if you decide that you would rather go pick flowers than go to the council, that is your right, but decisions will be made without you there. That is great if you trust the council, if you don't then you should go to it and participate. There is no place for fascism here. The tribe rules itself and enforces its decisions itself. The Indians have always lived democratically long before the Greeks came up with a concept for it. And with true and equal representation to boot. Each person was their own representative. No need to elect representatives.

Yes, the internet is a luxury, but it is free for me since I don't pay for it. I cannot afford to, since I have an alternative lifestyle. Our over-population has not brought us the internet. And there is a force that counters entropy and keeps it in check.

Of course, we cannot go back in time, and the Indians also didn't do everything great. For example, if somebody comes and lives with the tribe but just parasites off of them, the Indians would just kill him rather than stop feeding him. I would rather stop feeding them instead of killing them.

I have little patience humoring people who have no ideas of their own but rather misunderstand other's ideas in order to attack them. So what are YOUR ideas of a Utopia? I think any Utopia would need to address the common ways people suffer, and helping minimize the suffering. It seems that classic examples from the dreams of humanity includes eliminating poverty, eliminating disease, and having equal rights and justice for everybody, and a strong ecology and making decisions on the seventh generation principle.

The easiest and fastest method for achieving this is to have everybody on board. If the majority are not on board, then we will have to wait until they are. Or else a fascist state will be temporarily necessary. Unfortunately, fascist governments do not like to give up their power after they have affected the change they were meant to. I hate fascism, so I am not advocating it, but sometimes people in their stupidity need and ask for fascism. I had lived in a fascist community where there was a silent figurehead around which we all had gathered, and a leader in charge which gave the orders, supposedly coming from the silent one. The silent one broke his silence and the fascist leader's power was taken away and she left after stealing a bunch of money. Everybody was overjoyed when she left and stopped working and just celebrated. The figurehead explained that if we didn't work then we wouldn't be able to have anything to eat, and so we should work voluntarily or else we need a fascist leader. With freedom comes responsibility. If you are not responsible for yourself and your community then you don't deserve to be free. That is my whole point. That is why children are not so free to do whatever they want, because they are not responsible enough, the parents are responsible for them. When a child is grown then he can make his own decisions and be free. That is what the teens are all about. Teen-agers are rebellious because they are trying to assert their own independence from their family. It is time to leave the nest.

So the first step is to agree on what we would want as a humanity for a Utopia. We may have to wait until most of humanity destroys itself.
The second step is to agree on steps to take us in that direction. Already fiat currency has failed and is in its death throes. It will be interesting to see what kind of new economics arises from the void left behind. This may take a little while because the truth of this is hidden so that the powers that be can try to hold onto some semblance of order and authority, but it has already crashed globally. This is a great opportunity once everyone realizes this fact and doesn't panic.

I think that if humanity makes it through this bottle-neck of environmental destruction/over-population/economic crash with no recovery/and global corporate fasism then many steps will be taken automatically and naturally. If you have any suggestions on a Utopian vision besides the current state of affairs then let's hear it! Let's hear some good ideas or just any ideas would be great.

But the plain and simple truth is that a Utopia is not possible unless everyone is responsible for themselves and the effects of their actions.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So what is your vision of a Utopia?
Do you think that we already live in a Utopia?

No, I don't think we have a utopia. My version of a utopian would basically be centered on the non-aggression principle.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

It isn't about political systems, ie. capitalism vs. fascism, regarding the right to build a house in the watershed.

Well fascism and capitalism are really economic systems. Fascism maybe a little of both an economic and social system. It's kind of gray. You're right though, economic systems don't really discuss rights, it's a social issue. Well I consider it a social issue because if you say political then people start thinking that it involves the state and people don't get their rights from the state.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

And yes, the very act of building a house in the watershed does harm people, not just the chemicals. Like I said, it doesn't matter what system of government a country has right now, they still don't allow one to live in the watersheds because it is just dirty.

You will have to show how the simple act of building and not dumping of chemicals harms people.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

As far as the man that was tied to a tree. We knew he was guilty, he knew he was guilty, we knew he knew, he knew we knew, and we all knew that the other knew that we knew.

Awesome. Guilty until proven guilty.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The only thing to do to protect ourselves was tie him to a tree until we could think of what to do with him. You must understand that this was about thirty miles from the nearest road. This isn't fascism, this is protecting the women and children. Any family person would do the same.

Don't rationalize your debased sense of justice by pawning it off on what another would do. Take responsibility for your actions.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

As far as a family is concerned, you would let your children do what they want unless they are a danger to themselves or another. Since they may not have the knowledge to keep themselves safe, you tell them not to cross the road by themselves, or not to touch the stove because it is hot. THis isn't fascism.

Well just before you were saying that fascism is like having children. Some people need it and need to be told what to do...like children. Now you are saying it isn't fascism. You will excuse me if I am confused by what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The chief does not sit there giving orders. A chief never tells anybody else what to do. The whole tribe decides what to do. The chief leads the battles also. The chief is not an elite.

What native people are you attributing this quality to because I think it is ridiculously naive.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The whole tribe knows that in order to survive they must follow the buffalo. The whole tribe has a council and the council lasts until every single person participating agrees.

Everyone on the council agrees. You are making it sound like Native Americans had direct democracy.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

It isn't even a majority rule, it has to be every single person in agreement.

I highly doubt that there is 100% agreement in all things concerning the tribe.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

And everybody in the tribe participates, if you decide that you would rather go pick flowers than go to the council, that is your right, but decisions will be made without you there. That is great if you trust the council, if you don't then you should go to it and participate. There is no place for fascism here. The tribe rules itself and enforces its decisions itself. The Indians have always lived democratically long before the Greeks came up with a concept for it. And with true and equal representation to boot. Each person was their own representative. No need to elect representatives.

Really I would love to see these examples of B.C. Indian tribes carrying out democracy. The Athenian polis was the example of actual representation. It seems you are implying that the Athenians elected officials to represent them...they didn't. It was a direct democracy.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Yes, the internet is a luxury, but it is free for me since I don't pay for it. I cannot afford to, since I have an alternative lifestyle. Our over-population has not brought us the internet. And there is a force that counters entropy and keeps it in check.

I never said over-population brought the internet. I said the advent of the Industrial Revolution brought with it the capacity to support the population explosion in Europe. The internet is a distant result of the Industrial Revolution. Please read what I said more carefully.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Of course, we cannot go back in time, and the Indians also didn't do everything great. For example, if somebody comes and lives with the tribe but just parasites off of them, the Indians would just kill him rather than stop feeding him. I would rather stop feeding them instead of killing them.

What is this comment in relation to?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I have little patience humoring people who have no ideas of their own but rather misunderstand other's ideas in order to attack them. So what are YOUR ideas of a Utopia? I think any Utopia would need to address the common ways people suffer, and helping minimize the suffering. It seems that classic examples from the dreams of humanity includes eliminating poverty, eliminating disease, and having equal rights and justice for everybody, and a strong ecology and making decisions on the seventh generation principle.

I've commented on this at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The easiest and fastest method for achieving this is to have everybody on board. If the majority are not on board, then we will have to wait until they are.

What happened to the tribe mentality of having everyone agree? Now it's just a majority?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Or else a fascist state will be temporarily necessary. Unfortunately, fascist governments do not like to give up their power after they have affected the change they were meant to. I hate fascism, so I am not advocating it, but sometimes people in their stupidity need and ask for fascism.

Ah so only you are fit to live beyond a fascist government. Everyone else is too stupid to do so.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I had lived in a fascist community where there was a silent figurehead around which we all had gathered, and a leader in charge which gave the orders, supposedly coming from the silent one. The silent one broke his silence and the fascist leader's power was taken away and she left after stealing a bunch of money. Everybody was overjoyed when she left and stopped working and just celebrated. The figurehead explained that if we didn't work then we wouldn't be able to have anything to eat, and so we should work voluntarily or else we need a fascist leader. With freedom comes responsibility. If you are not responsible for yourself and your community then you don't deserve to be free. That is my whole point. That is why children are not so free to do whatever they want, because they are not responsible enough, the parents are responsible for them. When a child is grown then he can make his own decisions and be free. That is what the teens are all about. Teen-agers are rebellious because they are trying to assert their own independence from their family. It is time to leave the nest.

I think you are engaging in ridiculous paternalism in order to rationalize iron fisted delusions.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But the plain and simple truth is that a Utopia is not possible unless everyone is responsible for themselves and the effects of their actions.

You say that but then you think society is too stupid to be responsible for themselves. Where is your premise in this outlook? You think that everyone will somehow become super-smart or super-caring after a global disaster, see the errors of their ways and ascribe to what you are proposing?

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.

Ah so only you are fit to live beyond a fascist government. Everyone else is too stupid to do so.

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 highly doubt that there is 100% agreement in all things concerning the tribe.

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.

What happened to the tribe mentality of having everyone agree? Now it's just a majority?

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.

Well just before you were saying that fascism is like having children. Some people need it and need to be told what to do...like children.

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.

Really I would love to see these examples of B.C. Indian tribes carrying out democracy.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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:

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

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.

Dannon, if you can not tell already, this guy is not very informed on the subject. Even if he will not be open minded the rest of us would appreciate it if you'd at least stop this bickering match and compose yourself in a way easier for others to follow.

Laughing Man, please do some reading, at least before you carry around the moniker of a character who lived inside a library of ancient books. Srsly dude. The natives at your local walmart are nothing like ancient native american society. When a society is forced to join a different society (via migration, occupation, slavery or any other means) they automatically join the lowest wrung of that social ladder. They become the beggars and criminals. Due to environmental challenges and changes in diet, their health also deteriorates along with their longevity. Besides, it was not their bodies that sustained them. It waa the type of lifestyle they lead which was much healthier than our westernized one.

I honestly don't see I'm bothering to talk to you though, you obviously know everything and are only here to help guide us to your point of view. Such conversations are worthless.

YEs, thank you. And this discussion is about Utopia, not american indians. I was just pointing out that we need to look to our ancestors and our default way of life as a natural species. In order to live in harmony with this planet, which I think is a requirement for a Utopia, we need to re-learn and re-member that we are a part of nature just like the wolf and the deer and we need to become a part of the ecosystem from inside the ecosystem like the Indians were instead of studying the ecosystem as an outsider and making stupid decisions from an outsider's perspective of what the ecosystem needs.

Right now, in the town nearest me, they are planning on cutting down the last stand of old-growth forest in our watershed to expand the ski runs on the mountain. They are motivated by money, but none of the townsfolk want it done. There is no democracy happening here. Our drinking water will be affected, this space is also a bridge between two mountain ranges and the only place where the wildlife can cross, also it is the home for many endangered animals and animals endemic to this area. And it will all be gone in about a month. This is not Utopia. But it is capitalism. You see, the economy is a fake ecology. We make decisions in this modern world by how it will affect the economy but not how it will affect the environment. The environment, the ecology, is the real economy.

Building a house in a watershed is detrimental because in order to build a house you need to clear some land. You need to cut down some trees, which hold the rivers together and hold all the dirt, sediment, and toxic minerals out. Now, let us assume that you found a meadow in the watershed to build in and you didn't need to cut down any trees. You will still have to shit. And everything that is in the watershed ends up in the drinking water. YOu know how in places like India you have people bathing and washing their clothes in the river and downstream people depend on the water for drinking and they all get cholera or dysentery and die. If you have a road to your house that ends up in the water along with the exhaust and fumes and oil from your car. The reason why the life expectancy increased and the population increased was because people realized that you need clean water to drink. The population remained around the same in Europe until they learned about keeping people out of the watersheds. Then the population started increasing exponentially.

Who deserves to live in a fascist state? Those who would fuck over their neighbors for their own benefit. Those too lazy to do the right thing when the right thing is necessary. Those who want to profit off of their neighbor's misfortune. People who directly or indirectly require people to suffer for their own selfish benefit. People who don't stand up to their fascist government. Right now in the U.S.A. at least we live in a fascist government. And it is spreading globally. This whole economy collapse might just be a conspiracy to tie the last knot.

All societies were democratic and anarchistic before 5,000 years ago. The chief is not like our president. The chief is not a leader by any political power. He is a leader because he helps people come to their own decisions together and agree. He has no mandate, he is not elected, he doesn't inherit the position. He doesn't tell anybody what to do. If the people are undecided he is undecided. The decision making for the community or tribe is made by reaching a consensus. The consensus means that everybody agrees. It doesn't mean majority rule. It means everybody agrees. If your house is infested with cockroaches and you have no suitable food to eat your whole family will agree to move to a better place. It isn't that the Dad or Mom makes the decision. Even the children will agree. If there are no Buffalo or a neighboring tribe wants to kill you and take your food and they are stronger than you the whole tribe will agree to move. If the white people are coming and pushing you back and killing all the buffalo and infecting you with smallpox the people will reach a decision to either keep retreating or fight back. I don't see why it is so hard to believe that people can agree to survive when their survival is at stake. It isn't like they have to have a council about how many feathers are to be in somebody's hair.

So, socially and politically and ecologically many things need to change in order for a Utopia to exists out in the open. Right now if you build a Utopia out in the open the SWAT team and the ATF will firebomb your community and make up some bullshit reason. The changes that need to occur (but not enforced through corporal punishment, but by education) are that people need to know what is good for each other and the community, and need to be mature enough to choose the right thing, and people need to suck it up and get over their emotional baggage. Lots of emotional healing needs to take place, globally. People need to learn to communicate openly, people need to learn to listen without defense and speak without offense. People need to learn not to take trivial things personally. People need to banish the fliers.

I think it's important to keep government as localized as possible for that very instance, and to keep everything unrelated to local government out of the hands of the higher orders of government. For starters lands should be subdivided into communities around 150 people, and these communities should have the final say over what's done with their property. I've been writing out a new constitution after considering all the tragic flaws in the US govt and it keeps donning on me democracy doesn't work on a large scale, you must always keep it localized. That's why I would have these Communities meet weekly and appoint a councilor to represent their opinion at Municipal Council, and they elect a rep for District Assembly and so forth until you get congress made up of people appointed by their various state republics. This way no one is getting elected via fundraisers and mob fervor, everyone is appointed by respected community members. Everyone is held accountable down the lines. When it comes to global affairs, people are pretty stupid. When it comes to their community, that's the best chance they have of making a smart decision.

But I think the biggest thing that would fix government is if people learned to start listening. It's a tragedy early colonists viewed Natives as savages with nothing to offer because we would have learned how to run government properly from the Sioux Nation. Elders of different villages would meet together in a circle and talk... and then wait for really long periods of time between speakers. Next time you're in an argument with someone, try waiting a good 10 minutes before speaking. Even that, you'll realize, will disarm the argument and turn it into a discussion as well as give you better composition over your thoughts, you know exactly what you want to say but furthermore you're responding better to the other person's approach. If our congress just gave it each other a little needful silence, our credit rating would be fine.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Laughing Man, please do some reading, at least before you carry around the moniker of a character who lived inside a library of ancient books. Srsly dude.

How you perceive me, either correctly or incorrectly, is beyond my control. When you say "do something reading," what are you exactly do you mean? Do some reading on utopian societies? I'm pretty much doing my grad work on that. Well intellectual history, the history of ideas, but mostly with a focus on political ideas. Utopian societies are just a side hobby because they are usually formed because of political ideas. Or did you mean Native Americans? I asked for evidence for the assertion that Native Americans lived longer in their tribal society. Go back and check if you don't believe me. I mean that is the point of a discussion right? To provide evidence for assertions you make? Or are we taking the "I can say anything cause its the internet and if you don't believe me then you have to read...well something" routine?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The natives at your local walmart are nothing like ancient native american society.

It is really you who should be the individual with the moniker of withholding ancient knowledge. Natives Americans today aren't like the Native Americans of the Pre-20th century!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

When a society is forced to join a different society (via migration, occupation, slavery or any other means) they automatically join the lowest wrung of that social ladder. They become the beggars and criminals.

True this can happen but you are leaping in thinking that life expectancy drops simply because of a new environment and honestly how do you hope to apply that to a people's who have been in such a society for generations. I can see alienation (not the Marxist sense) in the first generation which tries to conform to a different society but I don't really see an assimilation problem several generations down the line.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Due to environmental challenges and changes in diet, their health also deteriorates along with their longevity. Besides, it was not their bodies that sustained them. It waa the type of lifestyle they lead which was much healthier than our westernized one.

You'll have to show evidence for this assertion. I live down in South-West Florida and we have the Calusa tribe. They still hold ceremonies with their tradition food found in the Gulf coast.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I honestly don't see I'm bothering to talk to you though, you obviously know everything and are only here to help guide us to your point of view. Such conversations are worthless.

I think you over-inflate my image. If you want to see me like that then ok I guess.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

YEs, thank you. And this discussion is about Utopia, not american indians.

Well you said that your perfect society is a tribal one and used the example of American Indians, so don't act like your the victim of sidetracking.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I was just pointing out that we need to look to our ancestors and our default way of life as a natural species.

Why because it was the first way? Why assume that tribal living is the "natural" way? Why isn't today a "natural" way?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

In order to live in harmony with this planet, which I think is a requirement for a Utopia, we need to re-learn and re-member that we are a part of nature just like the wolf and the deer and we need to become a part of the ecosystem from inside the ecosystem like the Indians were instead of studying the ecosystem as an outsider and making stupid decisions from an outsider's perspective of what the ecosystem needs.

Why do you classify man as not being apart of nature now? You don't seem religious but I could be wrong. Well not according to Omnis but whatever. Man is a product of nature and he has a nature. We have evolved into who we are today, we still have a nature and we are still a product of nature. Do you think that because we don't live on straw mats or mud huts that we have lost who we are?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Right now, in the town nearest me, they are planning on cutting down the last stand of old-growth forest in our watershed to expand the ski runs on the mountain. They are motivated by money, but none of the townsfolk want it done.

Profit = happy people. Well unless they are given money by the government. If they were I would be protesting this along with you but not for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is no democracy happening here. Our drinking water will be affected, this space is also a bridge between two mountain ranges and the only place where the wildlife can cross, also it is the home for many endangered animals and animals endemic to this area. And it will all be gone in about a month. This is not Utopia. But it is capitalism. You see, the economy is a fake ecology. We make decisions in this modern world by how it will affect the economy but not how it will affect the environment. The environment, the ecology, is the real economy.

Honestly, unless you are drinking straight from the river I don't see how you can get disease-ridden water. Water is at least cleaned before it reaches your home. Which endangered animals live there? I wouldn't call capitalism an "ecology." It's not really a science. Well it could be if you consider social studies, social sciences. There is room to debate over that. I don't really see an "economy" in the environment basically because animals and rocks don't have goals nor ends or the ability to apply means towards ends. Again, room to debate if that is true with primates.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Building a house in a watershed is detrimental because in order to build a house you need to clear some land. You need to cut down some trees, which hold the rivers together and hold all the dirt, sediment, and toxic minerals out. Now, let us assume that you found a meadow in the watershed to build in and you didn't need to cut down any trees. You will still have to shit. And everything that is in the watershed ends up in the drinking water.

You know the Romans made this interesting invention. It's call "plumbing."

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

YOu know how in places like India you have people bathing and washing their clothes in the river and downstream people depend on the water for drinking and they all get cholera or dysentery and die. If you have a road to your house that ends up in the water along with the exhaust and fumes and oil from your car. The reason why the life expectancy increased and the population increased was because people realized that you need clean water to drink. The population remained around the same in Europe until they learned about keeping people out of the watersheds. Then the population started increasing exponentially.

Haha, yes, the population burst experienced in Europe was because of watershed trespassing enforcement. Come on, are you serious? If so at least so evidence for such a claim. Actual urban sanitation is a late 19th, early 20th century concept. Sanitation existed before then, with things like Roman plumbing, but mass populace sanitation is a fairly new concept in relative terms.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Who deserves to live in a fascist state? Those who would fuck over their neighbors for their own benefit. Those too lazy to do the right thing when the right thing is necessary. Those who want to profit off of their neighbor's misfortune. People who directly or indirectly require people to suffer for their own selfish benefit. People who don't stand up to their fascist government. Right now in the U.S.A. at least we live in a fascist government. And it is spreading globally. This whole economy collapse might just be a conspiracy to tie the last knot.

That is so ambiguous it could be anyone you deem.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

All societies were democratic and anarchistic before 5,000 years ago. The chief is not like our president. The chief is not a leader by any political power. He is a leader because he helps people come to their own decisions together and agree. He has no mandate, he is not elected, he doesn't inherit the position. He doesn't tell anybody what to do. If the people are undecided he is undecided. The decision making for the community or tribe is made by reaching a consensus. The consensus means that everybody agrees. It doesn't mean majority rule. It means everybody agrees. If your house is infested with cockroaches and you have no suitable food to eat your whole family will agree to move to a better place. It isn't that the Dad or Mom makes the decision. Even the children will agree. If there are no Buffalo or a neighboring tribe wants to kill you and take your food and they are stronger than you the whole tribe will agree to move. If the white people are coming and pushing you back and killing all the buffalo and infecting you with smallpox the people will reach a decision to either keep retreating or fight back. I don't see why it is so hard to believe that people can agree to survive when their survival is at stake. It isn't like they have to have a council about how many feathers are to be in somebody's hair.

Again, which tribe are you presenting? You are making this blanket statement about how all chiefs are such and such a way. At least narrow down who you are highlighting.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So, socially and politically and ecologically many things need to change in order for a Utopia to exists out in the open. Right now if you build a Utopia out in the open the SWAT team and the ATF will firebomb your community and make up some bullshit reason.

Hey, we agree on something! This is weird...what do I do? Hooray?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The changes that need to occur (but not enforced through corporal punishment, but by education) are that people need to know what is good for each other and the community, and need to be mature enough to choose the right thing, and people need to suck it up and get over their emotional baggage. Lots of emotional healing needs to take place, globally. People need to learn to communicate openly, people need to learn to listen without defense and speak without offense. People need to learn not to take trivial things personally. People need to banish the fliers.

Please stop breaking arguments apart, it's so useless.

there's a difference between composing an argument and reacting to one. Rather than constantly reacting, how about compose your own counter argument instead?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Please stop breaking arguments apart, it's so useless.

there's a difference between composing an argument and reacting to one. Rather than constantly reacting, how about compose your own counter argument instead?

I like to do line by line quotes so that people can't say I didn't address something. In order to react to an argument, at least on the internet, one would have to compose one. I mean I do retort to your comments thereby inferring that I am disseminating my composed thoughts which can be consider an "argument." Or are you referring to the fact that I am asking a lot of questioning in a manner in which you think is condescending? To that, I like to use the Socratic method. It makes people look foolish and it involves little effort because honestly with these internet discussions people are just going to blow them off anyway. I mean its not like either of you are going to present actual academic evidence to show the decreasing lifespan of pre-colonial and post-industrial Indians. Amirite?!

Freedom is the ability to lay naked, face-down on the hood of a cop's car and take a nap.
No compromise.

You absolutely have the freedom to do that.

As well as responsibility to face the consequences. It sounds like you're just concerned about your own absolute entitlement, not really freedom at all. Would this include freedom for cops to lay naked on the hood of your car as well?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You absolutely have the freedom to do that.

As well as responsibility to face the consequences. It sounds like you're just concerned about your own absolute entitlement, not really freedom at all. Would this include freedom for cops to lay naked on the hood of your car as well?

I think you guys, along with Hobbes, confuse ability and rights.

So we delayed them from cutting down the trees in the headwaters of our watershed. Usually the forest service controls the water rights and sells them to the highest bidder (usually Nestle or some other corporation to bottle drinking water) but our town is unique in that it has the right to control its own water. This controversy about expanding the ski resort when it cannot even afford to stay open as it is because there has been no snow for the past 10 years is really about taking away the town's right to control its own water. If you cut down the trees in the springs it reduces the amount of water retained and increases the sediment that fills up the reservoir. You see, a few towns away they had to dump 300,000 gallons of water from the reservoir because it was contaminated with mineral sediments and clogging the pipes. At the same time they asked the citizens to conserve water and not to water their lawns. This, when there was an abundance of water but the watershed was not taken care of. Every town should be able to have control over their own water.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

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.

I just want to add this....

This is how you interpret life expectancy statistics. From wikipedia
In a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 37 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70

Our average life span, assuming you live past 5, has not increased very much at all since our records began. Agriculture made us live a fair bit longer.
Medicine, about 2 or 3 years more.

Infant deaths have dropped dramatically however. Which is why the numbers look so different when comparing older times to now.

All in all, hunter gatherers, assuming they lived past 5, would live only a slightly shorter life than someone does now, on average.

Pace-makers alone changed the curve dramatically. I was considering this too, but from a different vantage point. We have ways to keep the elderly alive, sure but it seems like outside the west the elderly are much healthier, over all.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Pace-makers alone changed the curve dramatically. I was considering this too, but from a different vantage point. We have ways to keep the elderly alive, sure but it seems like outside the west the elderly are much healthier, over all.

Also, those few extra years we keep them alive are filled with pain, discomfort, incontinence, dementia and many many many many other not nice things. So I sometimes wonder if it's even worth it.

I recently found this, and it seems relevant. I'm not trying to weigh in myself at the moment, but I thought I'd post this for consideration.

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.