• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

the irony of one workers paradise trying to destroy another workers paradise.

Not really, the top down authoritarian system under Stalin was just dictatorship with a fancy name.

All the top down authoritarian systems attacked the Anarchists. It represented something very dangerous.

The elimination of petty dictators. And some big one's too.

But it's not, because under a dictator you have no freedom, where you still have perfect freedom to go where you want know. Your system would destroy freedom.

It is a delusion to say that everybody has freedom.

Many are trapped. And when they hit 45 - 50, really trapped.
 
Not really, the top down authoritarian system under Stalin was just dictatorship with a fancy name.

All the top down authoritarian systems attacked the Anarchists. It represented something very dangerous.

The elimination of petty dictators. And some big one's too.

But it's not, because under a dictator you have no freedom, where you still have perfect freedom to go where you want know. Your system would destroy freedom.

It is a delusion to say that everybody has freedom.

Many are trapped. And when they hit 45 - 50, really trapped.

But communism started as the pipe dream for workers and became a system far worse then what it was before. The Spanish Anarchists didn't even get to point where this would have most likely happened under their regime and you have no means to prevent it from happening.
 
Not really, the top down authoritarian system under Stalin was just dictatorship with a fancy name.

All the top down authoritarian systems attacked the Anarchists. It represented something very dangerous.

The elimination of petty dictators. And some big one's too.



It is a delusion to say that everybody has freedom.

Many are trapped. And when they hit 45 - 50, really trapped.

But communism started as the pipe dream for workers and became a system far worse then what it was before. The Spanish Anarchists didn't even get to point where this would have most likely happened under their regime and you have no means to prevent it from happening.

Soviet Communism moved immediately, under Lenin, into dictatorship.

It was nothing but a dictatorship with slogans.
 
But communism started as the pipe dream for workers and became a system far worse then what it was before. The Spanish Anarchists didn't even get to point where this would have most likely happened under their regime and you have no means to prevent it from happening.

Soviet Communism moved immediately, under Lenin, into dictatorship.

It was nothing but a dictatorship with slogans.

And the anarchists never had a chance because they never won their revolution. If they had won then there would have been nothing to stop it from becoming a dictatorship.
 
Kevin Dutton, author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths(link is external), argues “Traits that are common among psychopathic serial killers—a grandiose sense of self-worth, persuasiveness, superficial charm, ruthlessness, lack of remorse and the manipulation of others—are also shared by politicians and world leaders. Individuals, in other words, running not from the police. But for office. Such a profile allows those who present with these traits to do what they like when they like, completely unfazed by the social, moral or legal consequences of their actions.”

In their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work(link is external), Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, argue while psychopaths may not be ideally suited for traditional work environments by virtue of a lack of desire to develop good interpersonal relationships, they have other abilities such as reading people and masterful influence and persuasion skills that can make them difficult to be seen as the psychopaths they are. According to their and others’ studies somewhere between 3-25% of executives could be assessed as psychopaths, a much higher figure than the general population figure of 1%.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-are-there-more-psychopaths-in-the-boardroom

Based on my limited time working in the sub-C suite, the level below the CEO's, CFO's etc., I am not the least bit surprised by this.

This is one of the strengths of capitalism, that it takes what are considered anti-social characteristics, greed, outsized ego, aggression, competitiveness, etc. and channels it into a safe, socially beneficial endeavor, business.

Another area in which you will find a high percentage of psychopaths would be the military.
 
This is one of the strengths of capitalism, that it takes what are considered anti-social characteristics, greed, outsized ego, aggression, competitiveness, etc. and channels it into a safe, socially beneficial endeavor, business.

:unsure:
 
Soviet Communism moved immediately, under Lenin, into dictatorship.

It was nothing but a dictatorship with slogans.

And the anarchists never had a chance because they never won their revolution. If they had won then there would have been nothing to stop it from becoming a dictatorship.
Out of curiousity, how would a dictatorship of anarchy work?
 
Soviet Communism moved immediately, under Lenin, into dictatorship.

It was nothing but a dictatorship with slogans.

And the anarchists never had a chance because they never won their revolution. If they had won then there would have been nothing to stop it from becoming a dictatorship.

Naw. Those people couldn't have organized a freefall down a mine shaft.
 
And the anarchists never had a chance because they never won their revolution. If they had won then there would have been nothing to stop it from becoming a dictatorship.
Out of curiousity, how would a dictatorship of anarchy work?

A hierarchical system would form and a defacto government would form.
 
Out of curiousity, how would a dictatorship of anarchy work?

A hierarchical system would form and a defacto government would form.

Hierarchical systems are held together with force. They are primitive and highly inefficient since human capital is reduced to mindless slavery.

Remove the force and there are some who will be better leaders than others, but there will be no dictators.

Real freedom is freedom from all forms of dictatorship.
 
A hierarchical system would form and a defacto government would form.

Hierarchical systems are held together with force. They are primitive and highly inefficient since human capital is reduced to mindless slavery.

Remove the force and there are some who will be better leaders than others, but there will be no dictators.

Real freedom is freedom from all forms of dictatorship.

So in your imagined world, if Zaa and Zab wanted to start an enterprise, and Zac and Zad agreed to work for that enterprise at $/hr, they'd all be free to enter into that arrangement. After all, to stop them, you'd need force. Or does the revolution require they be killed off first?
 
A hierarchical system would form and a defacto government would form.

Hierarchical systems are held together with force. They are primitive and highly inefficient since human capital is reduced to mindless slavery.

Remove the force and there are some who will be better leaders than others, but there will be no dictators.

Real freedom is freedom from all forms of dictatorship.

But a hierarchy will emerge, and oligarchy will be established. Even small groups independent groups can suddenly fuse into large powerful entities. I present the following biographies as examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
 
Hierarchical systems are held together with force. They are primitive and highly inefficient since human capital is reduced to mindless slavery.

Remove the force and there are some who will be better leaders than others, but there will be no dictators.

Real freedom is freedom from all forms of dictatorship.

So in your imagined world, if Zaa and Zab wanted to start an enterprise, and Zac and Zad agreed to work for that enterprise at $/hr, they'd all be free to enter into that arrangement. After all, to stop them, you'd need force. Or does the revolution require they be killed off first?

This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?
 
Hierarchical systems are held together with force. They are primitive and highly inefficient since human capital is reduced to mindless slavery.

Remove the force and there are some who will be better leaders than others, but there will be no dictators.

Real freedom is freedom from all forms of dictatorship.

But a hierarchy will emerge, and oligarchy will be established. Even small groups independent groups can suddenly fuse into large powerful entities. I present the following biographies as examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

We are barely a baby step from slavery and feudalism.

Let humans live a few centuries without dictatorships and they will not resemble the poor souls destroyed by learned helplessness that are ubiquitous in the current system.
 
So in your imagined world, if Zaa and Zab wanted to start an enterprise, and Zac and Zad agreed to work for that enterprise at $/hr, they'd all be free to enter into that arrangement. After all, to stop them, you'd need force. Or does the revolution require they be killed off first?

This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?

But to prevent that from happening you will need force to do it, laws jails and of course those wonderful "re-education" camps.
 
This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?

But to prevent that from happening you will need force to do it, laws jails and of course those wonderful "re-education" camps.

Police that work for the people they serve and not just the wealthy will be a very different kind of police.

Society forms around beliefs and norms.

Change the beliefs and you have a different society entirely.
 
But a hierarchy will emerge, and oligarchy will be established. Even small groups independent groups can suddenly fuse into large powerful entities. I present the following biographies as examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

We are barely a baby step from slavery and feudalism.

Let humans live a few centuries without dictatorships and they will not resemble the poor souls destroyed by learned helplessness that are ubiquitous in the current system.

And we can live in a world with unicorns and tooth fairies too.
 
So in your imagined world, if Zaa and Zab wanted to start an enterprise, and Zac and Zad agreed to work for that enterprise at $/hr, they'd all be free to enter into that arrangement. After all, to stop them, you'd need force. Or does the revolution require they be killed off first?

This is hand waving to not address the immorality of dictatorship.

Should people be free to sell themselves into slavery?

Perhaps your definition of slavery is not the same used by nearly everyone else. Who are you to interlope in the affairs of others? You seem no different than the mullahs or Fred Phelps.
 
But to prevent that from happening you will need force to do it, laws jails and of course those wonderful "re-education" camps.

Police that work for the people they serve and not just the wealthy will be a very different kind of police.

Society forms around beliefs and norms.

Change the beliefs and you have a different society entirely.

You are right about that. The Nazis found enough people to through jews into concentration camps and gas chambers.
 
We are barely a baby step from slavery and feudalism.

Let humans live a few centuries without dictatorships and they will not resemble the poor souls destroyed by learned helplessness that are ubiquitous in the current system.

And we can live in a world with unicorns and tooth fairies too.

This is exactly what the dull without vision said about monarchy.

It is a dream to think we can live with democracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom