@miserablepileofsecrets because the common enemy is a bad government, not the upper class

@pernia @miserablepileofsecrets enemy is authority

@sathariel @pernia @miserablepileofsecrets What's wrong with authority?

@lain_os @sathariel @miserablepileofsecrets it should always be questioned

@pernia @miserablepileofsecrets @sathariel I don't even agree there. But yeah, authority and hierarchy are good. Really something like this is the kind of hierarchy you want.

@lain_os @pernia @miserablepileofsecrets @sathariel

interesting how the class structure was so similar between civilizations on the other side of the world, warriors are alongside here too

@orekix @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @pernia @sathariel Classless society isn't natural to animals (including humans).

This is why every time anarcho-communists win a class warfare, organized communists groups kill them later.

@waltercool @orekix @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @sathariel well hierachies aren't present in all animals, but they are present in other animals that aren't human, like lobsters. but yeah hiearchies are natural in humans.

@pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @sathariel Which animal doesn't follow hierarchies?

Even insects and fishes have strong hierarchies.

@waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @sathariel well snakes, for example. they just fuck and leave, they don't even take care of their children. then they just eat until they find a new mate. many, if not most, animals dont exist in communities

@pernia @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets if it's a nature you recognize, you can defy it. The notion of the best ruling is perfectionist's delusion. When we are faced with a decision that must be made, but none of us knows how, we tell bob to make it. If it turns out good we praise bob, our benevolent leader, and if it turns out bad we blame bob the cruel tyrant. This is how we cope with our inability to accept our own weakness.

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets what does that have to do with humans existing in hierarchies? are you saying that humans should defy hierarchies? if that's the case, my argument against it would be not that it would be impossible per se, but that defying hiearchy systems would cause more suffering than it seeks to solve

@pernia Your initial stance was that hierarchy is unavoidable due to nature, which was undisputed. My first statement challenged that and, as you can see, in relevant enough way for you to change your stance from unavoidable to just "better". Afterwards I went on with an elaboration of this nature you alluded to, and that, from my point of view, it has nothing to do with merit or power. Regarding my stance on the dichotomy presented, I'm skeptical of it... might turn out false... need more redpills!
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets well i didn't change my stance. it is unavoidable, thus it is better not to try and change the fact of hierachies. where merit and power comes in, is the fact that you can change the type of heirarchy to one that rewards merit and provides upwards mobility for it. it is still a hierarchy, but it a more satisfactory one.

@pernia So now it is unavoidable, but not due to nature? Just cause? I guess we're going to cite history now? Never has it ever been known before!

Regarding the grand meritocracy plan specifically: if there is a decision to be made that has no objective measure of quality, how does any sort of merit help and how do you reward it? It doesn't make any sense. "Our emperor Elon Gates Dickinson would surely know how to stop all crime! He's got to be very smart, he made all of our dicks longer! Such merit!"
And if what your fear is that merit otherwise will not be rewarded, that is unfounded. Merit is always rewarded, that's the definition of merit.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets what? i never said its not due to nature, i said the opposite. it is due to nature, and that's why its unavoidable.

>elon gates

also, there's specialization. if john dickinson were the best policeman, she should be the head police chief and get paid more than other policemen. if wilma johnson was the best detective, she should be the head detective, and get paid more than other detectives, etc.

>your fear is that merit won't be rewarded
you can give anyone merit and thank them, but that doesn't mean excelling at something is incentivized. for example in communism, you completely eliminate economic incentives since they create inequality. now there's no economic incentives since private property is abolished, and since the state pays for everything, no one has a reason to put effort into their work. the same would be with lain_os's retarded system: there are no incentives because there is not upwards mobility, so society will stagnate.

@pernia you did not address the nature specifically, so I thought you're dropping it now. If you recognize it you can defy it, and that is how you change it. If you don't not recognize it you can not change it either. I recognize that hunger is my nature, therefore I can change my eating habits by defying it at will. I don't necessarily eat when I'm hungry, and I may eat when I'm not hungry. I can go on a hunger strike, and I would rather die than eat others like me. Nothing you recognize as your own natural tendency is unavoidable, such is free will. Unless of course what you meant is that this nature is unrecognizable to others and you have figured it out and just need to set up an elaborate trap for all the sheeple to fall into and finally do the right thing. That wouldn't last though.

Regarding specialization. You don't reward anyone with specialized money that they can only spend in a specialized markets. The best dick elongator gets just the same as the best doctor, if not more of it. If anything you break specialization by doing that.
And that only applies to things that have objective measure of quality. Things that we have a strong conceptual grasp on and control of.

"Oh yes that chunky police chad, who's so strong and brave she's not afraid to stop an armed standoff by just just handing out bitchslaps to everyone involved, is so good we must get her out of the streets, shove her into office, and give her more money so she can retire asap". There is a reason why you usually see older people in these positions, that have no measure of quality. People assume these position because they are expected to by others. She does not want to do that, she just wants to bitchslab those mofos her whole career, maybe develop a new more effective bitchslap technique and then retire, but you tell her "nope, if you want to retire, you gotta be bob", to incentivize people to be bobs, because there is no actual speciality in it.

Good specialists seek to improve their skills and to be recognized by their peers, not abandon their speciality, become a chief and accumulate wealth. Recognition is much more valuable both subjectively and objectively. Whole economies can collapse, countries and currencies seize to exist, but the specialists will always be valued and rewarded for their service to society, in one way or the other.

I don't really know what communism is and why you bring it up. Smells like another one of those dichotomies I must press X to doubt. And @lain_os I'm challenging here even more than you, but I don't expect engagement.

@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @lain_os @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @miserablepileofsecrets
> you can defy nature

I disagree. you can try, but you still have to worry about your natural habits and desires, like wanting to fit in or eating. You can't fully escape it.

>regarding specialization

you don't seem to understand what i meant by specialization. specialization just means getting very good at something. My argument was that people that were very good at something should lead other people in their field, since they have the most experience, and should be payed the most to justify the amount of work that leading whole operations entails. This is the recognition that incentivizes people to want to do their job. I never said to give different industries some sort of different money, you made that up.

>good specialists
Getting more money for doing a job at a higher rank in an organization is part of the recognition that you say is "much more valueable". Getting more money is just a way of saying "we want you to keep doing this and we're willing to shell a lot of money for it".

>communism
i bring up communism because it is a system without economic incentives, to show how not having economic incentives can have a negative impact in a society. Economic incentives is a big part of my argument, if you've been reading.

@pernia @namark @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @sathariel You know pretty well a "ruling class" will always exist, even without money. Anarcho-Primitivists knows that very well

Money is a way to manage and distribute power without use of violence in quid pro quo

History is wise, every time Anarcho-Communists won some victory, later other communist got rid of them. Cuba/China/URSS/etc

@waltercool pernia agrees with you, but does not consider the historical argument satisfactory, except when it suits the narrative.
@orekix @sathariel @pernia @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @waltercool @orekix @sathariel @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets what?

@pernia I offered you to resort to historical argument, but you refused it. When offered the same thing by someone who agreed with your premise you were satisfied by it. @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets i probably didn't understand your phrasing then, sorry. history in the end is just a recounting of human nature following its course over time so it makes sense to me.

@pernia the phrasing was rather hostile I must admit.
I never studied history, but conceptually to me it is an obfuscated record of mistakes we made in our struggle to defy nature. Hence saying something never happened/worked before does not prove it to be impossible. I intentionally offered that resort to attack it like this.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets well, since history is a struggle to defy nature, why defy nature? why struggle? so far it hasn't given fruits, what and does seem to give fruits are the systems closest to nature and freedoms (free market)

@pernia I guess your understanding of nature is as strange as your understanding of specialization... we defy nature because that is what makes us human. It's our whole thing.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets that's a romantic take, made by writers who like to see themselves as above nature. in the real world, humans exist within nature, and act according to its laws. the only thing that humans have that is artificial is technology, which is what humans used to satisfy their own natural interests.

@pernia @namark @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @orekix @waltercool sorry for posting almost unrelated to the topic, but would you call a nest or an anthill "artificial" (just for name two examples)? Okay, human tech is way more complex but still obeying the laws of nature.

@sathariel @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets @namark @orekix @waltercool hmm, good question. animals create things intentionally just like humans do, like birds nests, and we generally assume those things are part of nature. I would say then that technology is as natural as an anthill. its more complex, but it is still made to satisfy an animal's (humans') needs.

@pernia What's the difference between an anthill and your bones. Are your bones artificial or is absolutely everything natural?
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets well you didn't create your bones intentionally. that's the difference. and anthill was intentionally created, just as are scythes or guns

@pernia didn't your cells create your bones just as intentionally as ants - the anthill.
This line is not drawn anywhere outside of your mind. Thoughts are only things you can call unnatural, and that is where the meaningful definition begins. That is why saying humans are not natural, or defy nature, is only meaningful thing to say. Otherwise everything is natural and the word is meaningless.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets no, cells aren't as concious as ants. think about what you just said

@pernia sure I'll go stand in the corner and think about what I just said. The blasphemy. And you perhaps realize that you confirmed what I claimed, calling consciousness unnatural (or the source of the unnatural, which is the same thing in this context).
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets

@namark @orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets i didn't call it unnatural, i called it the opposite. you said that cells intentionally create bones, which is ridiculous. cells just do it, they can't think. ants can think to a certain extent, and they communicate to create shelter. its just no the same. and you keep misinterpreting what i say. I didn't say ants creating anthills was unnatural, i said that it was as natural as humans creating tools and shelter. what i'm arguing is that technology is in the end natural

@pernia I though I covered that case as well. If absolutely everything is natural than the word is meaningless. Any statement you make with that word will have no meaning, including all statements you made prior. It becomes equivalent of saying whether something exist or doesn't exist.

I'm not intentionally misinterpreting, I'm trying to fish out an understanding. Your initial claim was that only thing unnatural is technology. The anthill however made you veer towards the meaningless above, so I decided to push you with the bones, and see what that would do. Your response was as if there is a fundamental difference between the bones and the anthill, despite your current stance that it is all the same nature. The question wasn't weather they were identical in all respects, but only in the context of distinguishing natural form unnatural, and in that context you considered important to outline this seemingly important difference - the consciousness, and its connection to both the anthill and the technology. Finally this last one being unnatural/artificial in your initial stance is the only meaning you gave to the word nature in this discussion, since the alternative conclusion of everything being natural, as I outlined above, renders it meaningless. Thus I try to convince you, that perhaps intuitively you agree with me on what is unnatural, and that humanity is, well, most unnatural if you will.
@orekix @sathariel @waltercool @lain_os @miserablepileofsecrets