untermensche
Contributor
Is there any actual evidence of this dogmatic nonsense?
Knowing what humans have done does not tell you what they are capable of.
-
Features
Conservatives against Capitalism?
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Is there any actual evidence of this dogmatic nonsense?
Knowing what humans have done does not tell you what they are capable of.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
How about all of human history?
Humans are animals. Animals have hierarchical structures, from the Spotted Hyena queen to the dual hierarchies of male and female Rhesus Macaques. Denying nature like a creationist doesn't make nature go away.
lpetrich
Contributor
To return to Norberto Bobbio's view of Left vs. Right, it is that the Left prefers equality and that the Right prefers hierarchy. That seems to me to be a reasonable assessment.
As to equality, that has the nice feature that it can be universalized. Everybody can be equal to everybody else in some important way. This is because equality is transitive. If A == B and B == C, then A == C.
Turning to hierarchy, conservatives have had a variety of notions as to who should be on top. Like:
- - - Updated - - -
As to equality, that has the nice feature that it can be universalized. Everybody can be equal to everybody else in some important way. This is because equality is transitive. If A == B and B == C, then A == C.
Turning to hierarchy, conservatives have had a variety of notions as to who should be on top. Like:
- Virtuous, dignified, and excellent people
- Monarchs, aristocrats, nobles, and heirs of large fortunes
- Soldiers
- Business leaders
- Religious leaders
- One of the two sexes (in practice, always male)
- Some racial or ethnic group (in practice, always theirs)
- - - Updated - - -
Trausti, so you accept being on the bottom of a hierarchy? Otherwise, it's like "I believe in dictatorship, but with me the dictator".
??? The Left gave us the progressive stack. Many of the mass murders committed in socialist countries was based on imposed hierarchies.
untermensche
Contributor
You know about all of it do you?
Underseer
Contributor
What conservatives promote is neofeudalism, not capitalism.
untermensche
Contributor
Humans are communicating over the airwaves.
What other animal is doing that?
Humans have no need for hierarchies.
They are smarter than hyenas.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Conservatives have never been for capitalism. The tradition of Hamilton - Clay - Webster - Lincoln has always been of economic protectionism and government support of industries through loans, subsidies, central banking, etc.
Anything else is a political myth "believed" because it fits the narrative.
- - - Updated - - -
Hierarchy is not synonymous with oppression.
Anything else is a political myth "believed" because it fits the narrative.
- - - Updated - - -
Hierarchy is not synonymous with oppression.
And yet, hierarchies continue. Denying nature gets you nowhere.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
lol "voluntary"
untermensche
Contributor
Top down hierarchies are a form of oppression.
They exist for the same reason slavery existed.
Because some people want them.
But there is nothing natural about any of them.
They exist for the same reason slavery existed.
Because some people want them.
But there is nothing natural about any of them.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So you define any voluntary hierarchy as non-voluntary and therefore oppressive.
untermensche
Contributor
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yep. When the quarterback on the football team calls out the next game plan, he's being an authoritarian and the other players are oppressed. When the coach gives new plans to the quarterback, he's oppressing the quarterback and the rest of the team.
When the dungeon master rolls to see if the orc hit the character, the players are oppressed. The people who made the D&D rulebooks, they oppress the DM and the players.
A good athletic team has all the players voting on the plan and the coach doesn't exist.
When the dungeon master rolls to see if the orc hit the character, the players are oppressed. The people who made the D&D rulebooks, they oppress the DM and the players.
A good athletic team has all the players voting on the plan and the coach doesn't exist.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
No they don't. Homebrew mah brotha. Nothing stopping people from changing/making rules to suit their clique.
untermensche
Contributor
That is your real world example of a voluntary hierarchy?
What a waste of time.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
You say ALL hierarchies are imposed and involuntary. You did not allow for any exceptions.
Therefore even those examples are imposed and oppressive.
You might want to consider allowing for exceptions if you believe that those aren't oppressive imposed involuntary hierarchies. But then you'll have to come up with a way to tell the imposed and voluntary ones apart, and you'll never reveal to us how to tell them apart.
Therefore even those examples are imposed and oppressive.
You might want to consider allowing for exceptions if you believe that those aren't oppressive imposed involuntary hierarchies. But then you'll have to come up with a way to tell the imposed and voluntary ones apart, and you'll never reveal to us how to tell them apart.
untermensche
Contributor
Anything that is not needed is imposed.
A quarterback is not the top of some hierarchy. He is one member of a horizontal team.
The hierarchy is the coaches.
The question is: Are coaches needed?
I can't answer that. It is something that could be tested though.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I know. You can't answer the difference between a voluntary hierarchy and an involuntary hierarchy. You're only now grudgingly admitting that the former might even exist, which contradicts everything you believe.