Let me ask you this: if there is no "small group of elitists", then who's job is it to collect the people who go against what it seems you agree to be cardinal rules of human society?

I find it ridiculous to say that we have no need of a modicum of policing.

I would like to have a better car. If I find a single person with no family and I kill them and take their car, who punishes me for that? Do I get away with it if no one cares enough about that person to take up for them, or if they are afraid of me? Seriously, what in the hell are you saying here?

And trying to compare humans to animals is ridiculous as well.

Let me ask you this: if there is no "small group of elitists", then who's job is it to collect the people who go against what it seems you agree to be cardinal rules of human society?

And trying to compare humans to animals is ridiculous as well. Yes, a cornered animal will attack, but I have yet to meet an animal that is going to murder another animals Grandma, dissect her into 84 pieces, and piss in her eye sockets before snatching her pension check and setting her house on fire.

Hmm, if you are expecting a simple answer I'm afraid I can't give you one. First of all there is no such thing as an "elite" person/group. It is some way you perceive things. Go to an elite group or an elitist, he will have the same opinions hobby's and toughts as any other person. The only thing that differs is the fact he is more "skilled" in a certain field in comparisation with other people. The person or group itself may lable himself as "normal" while others call him "la creme de la creme".

You're liying if you don't hate the rule.

So, if I give you a rule that you must study twenty hour per day with the reason to make you the genius person, do you love my rule?
C'mon you hate it right?

________________________________________________________________
Quote:
It is "humans" or "human" not "humand
________________________________________________________________
I guess human is right, isn't it?
________________________________________________________________
Quote:
Slight chance you have another language then English?
________________________________________________________________
Honestly you're right, I have another language

One think that you should know, I have the same opinion with you, "If i ever meet god, he will disappear in a puf of logic"

There will always be those that crave power and will do anything to get it. They will therefore be very susceptible to corruption.

Think about it. If the mechanism for government hadn't already existed, do you think a nut like Hitler would have been able to attain the means by which to instate his particular brand of crazy on such a large scale?

...
The most direct control on the behavior of a biological system is the
knowledge stored in its genes. Genes will dictate particular actions in
particular circumstances, and preclude other actions. One way to solve the
problem of cooperation then would be to have a configuration of individuals
whose genes predispose them to cooperative moves. However, as long as the
genes of different individuals in a group can vary independently, we should
expect the evolution of deviant genes that predispose their carriers to
selfishness and defection, through genetic competition among the
cooperators (Campbell, 1983).

The cooperative configuration can only be salvaged if the genes for the
whole group are constrained to remain virtually identical, i.e. are kept
from diverging. In that case there is basically a single genetic control
directing the action of the different group members, and the fitness of
that control will be measured through the fitness of the group as a whole.
In such a group with a shared control, suboptimization is equal to global
optimization, since the good for an individual instance of the control is
identical to the good for the control on the collective. The selection of
the control will here be identical to selection at the level of the group.
Moreover, our earlier argument that global optimization is much less likely
to be achieved than suboptimization does not hold in this case, since the
constraint that keeps individual controls identical simultaneously reduces
the space of possible controls to the size for an individual control.

This "shared control" configuration is realized in the social insects:
bees, ants and termites (Campbell, 1983). The different members of an ant
colony are genetically very similar. Moreover, there is no independent
evolution of genes, since only the queen of the colony is capable of
reproducing her genes. This leads to a strongly cooperative system, since
the workers will have the best chances to further the retention and
replication of their (shared) genes by helping the colony as a whole to
achieve a maximal production of offspring by the queen. "Free rider" genes
would not survive as rebel workers are unable to reproduce.

In almost all other species of animals, however, the different members of
a group are able to independently reproduce their genes and thus keep open
the possibility for erosion of any cooperative arrangement. This includes
human populations. Yet human groups present some of the most extensive
cooperative systems, comparable only to the social insects. This can be
explained by assuming shared controls additional to the genetic one. Though
we will discuss different types of control mechanisms in a later section,
the most typically human mechanism can be found in culture: knowledge or
beliefs shared between individuals through communication. A belief, piece
of knowledge or pattern of behavior that is transmitted from one individual
to another one can be said to replicate. In analogy to genes, such cultural
replicators can be called "memes" (Dawkins, 1976; Heylighen, 1992a; Moritz,
this issue).

In order to get a shared control, in addition to replication of knowledge,
we need to find a constraining mechanism that keeps copies of a piece of
knowledge carried by different individuals virtually identical. This
mechanism can be found in what Boyd & Richerson (1985) have called
"conformist frequency-dependent non-linear (multiple-parenting)
transmission". ("conformist transmission" for short.) Unlike biological
reproduction, where genetic information is transmitted from one or two
parents to offspring, in cultural reproduction information can be
transmitted from several individuals ("parents") to the same individual
("multiple parenting"). In their mathematical model Boyd & Richerson find
that under certain (plausible) conditions it would be optimal for the
learners to adopt the majority or plurality beliefs, when several competing
beliefs are transmitted by different individuals. Thus, individuals would
tend to "conform" to the majority position of their elders and peers. In
relatively small groups this leads quickly to internal homogeneity on all
cultural traits.

The non-linear, positive feedback inherent in conformist transmission
implies that small differences in initial distribution of beliefs between
different groups will be intensified: if suffices that slightly more
individuals initially share a belief for that belief to come to dominate
all others. Thus, small variations between groups tend to be reinforced,
while variations within groups tend to be erased. The resulting
homogeneities within groups and sharp differences between groups provide
the possibility for cultural group selection: the group whose set of
beliefs is most beneficial will have a higher global fitness and tend to
replace groups with less adaptive beliefs. Beneficial beliefs in this
context mean beliefs that promote a synergetic or cooperative pattern of
interaction within the group.

This ingroup solidarity, however, tends to be associated with out-group
hostility, as ubiquitously noted in studies of ethnocentrism (LeVine &
Campbell, 1972). This follows from the fact that selection now takes place
on the group level, where relative fitness of one group with respect to the
others is the dominant criterion. When different groups use similar tools
and similar resources, this will produce a competitive configuration, and a
tendency to arms races, as argued earlier. In practice, ingroup solidarity
then becomes "clique selfishness": whatever the consequences for other
groups, the action that will be preferred is the one best for this group.
...

Of course he would have been able.

Let's look at the facts. Hitler gained power through a pre-existing avenue. Hitler used nationalism and patriotism to unify the people behind him. Take away these two factors and you are left with a physically and mentally unimpressive man.

Also, Hitler fought with the germans during WW1. He was a soldier, so I don't believe he was physically pretty weak. Maybe a short person but not weak.

Who among you thinks he could have attained the power he did without the prepaved avenues of election and democracy before him?

It still boggles my mind every time anyone wearing the mantle of Satanist preaches the goodness of slavery.

These PERCEIVED rights, include the ability to leave my shelter (home), and knowing that I am safe to do so, and that if an individual or a group of people decide to, in some way, to hinder that right, by attacking me for some reason, I will be protected by law enforcement (in most cases).

I simply expect that there will be roads to get to where I am going. Again, this is done through the government and its agencies.

There are many more examples I could give, but I believe most of you get my point about what I consider to be the positive aspects of government.

They use the power of the government to make their institutions stronger and more powerful, while making the government stronger and more powerful at the same time, since the government now works for them. The situation of control and power, at this point, takes on a snowball affect, where more power and jurisdiction over the people is desired and gained.

The snow ball affect of power and control is now unchecked, and there is no realistic way of stopping it, aside from legal means through elections and the like. However, the government and the people in power are aware of this possible Achilles heel, and it is certain that there are controls in place, that will keep the populace from making significant changes.

The Hitler fanbase and slavery comments smell like you're getting a bit emotional Dan. You surely don't expect us to fall on our knees and embrace the gospel you present simply because you think it rocks? Hey, my gospel rocks too.

Would Bush be able to become leader of the USA when there wasn't the apparatus he used? Not likely no but does it really matter? What I say is that if Bush isn't going for it, Jimmy or Sue or Jack will attempt.

Well, no. If the current power structure didn't exist Jimmy or Sue wouldn't have the means to attain power over 300 million people. Nobody would. Not even Jack.

I said the argument was borderlining inferiority Dan -not you- and completely opposing the very basics of Satanism.

You seem to give so much credit to the system that a man without it, is a rather inferior creature not capable of grand acts.

Yes, history shows it again and again and again. Remove authority or government and you create a vacuum that someone will fill. He'll create structures, authority for one simple reason: because he can.

That's what's its all about; the will to power.

I will state that communism (as theoretically intended) is a great thing and that if everything was communistic, we'd prosper. We'd not be slaves to a government, and not to capitalism.

Your argument, dear Dan, is filled with short cuts and assumptions.

Might I ask what you, from an whatever/Anarchist point of understanding, reason when it comes to;
Monarchy?

In fact, in a stateless society I could imagine pockets of everything from hard core military type rule to communism to lawlessness. If all property is private, the land owners would be free to govern their own land as they see fit.

I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.

From your "Agorist/Anarchist" point of view:
Any deep thoughts about Monarchy as government?
Pet idea of mine you see.
Please; throw me with your acumen?

If it is wrong for me to go to your house and take you at gun point, why is it ok for a small group of elitists to do it?

that small group of people that claims dominion over you, me, and all the land we inhabit.