Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled? | INFJ Forum

Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled?

acd

acd

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2009
15,937
39,459
1,887
fantasy world
MBTI
infp
Enneagram
9w8 sp/sx
This is the opening sentence of an essay by Marvin Harris called Our Kind.

Well what do you think?



Please provide long-winded drawn out examples and be as theoretical as you can and all of that jazz.
 
Last edited:
I believe that there are some people who can live without being ruled over, while others can not. For the simple reason that some people when given and inch, will take a mile and wreak havoc on stuff.

Because of this fact, I believe that it is unfair to people who would and would not be ruled over. I would venture to guess around 80% of the population would think that they can live without being ruled over. While it is likely that only around 20% of the population could actually live without being ruled over without causing major problems. Personally, I like to think I could live without being ruled or governed over. However, I bet there are people who would disagree with me on that, and probably give valid reason to why. I know several of my friends would think that they could live without a ruler or government, but I know for a fact that they could not. They would cause havoc.

So really. I am going to say no. We need someone to rule over us (not nesscerarly a single person). While there are some who could, it is unfair to the rest because of how people perceive themselves.
 
Yes, it is called a band level society. In a society like ours, no. Societies like our will always be hierarchical.
 
Could they exist? Sure.

(that's me being long-winded and hypothetical)
 
What kind of havoc, Indigo?

And Dragon, of course in our society there must be a governing body and hierarchy. That's what our civilization is composed of. Why is it that only in small groups of people, is it possible to have no rules and no hierarchy?

haha: Quinlan
 
It is only possible because in small societies, if you don't like what someone says, you can ignore them. In larger societies, if you don't like what they say, they use the police on you.
 
I think that this is more of an issue geared towards the question of ownership. Countries are offshoots of individuals owning land; it seems apparent that it is 'human nature' to own things, and because of that we've started taking large plots of lands and naming them, giving them invisible territory lines and declaring them the possesion of certain indivduals.

The source of this is probably due to survival of the fittest, like most things.
 
alt ctrl del said:
What kind of havoc, Indigo?
Click to expand...

Stealing, fighting, arugments. All of which will escelate into worse and more widespread things, eventually leading to wars.
 
slant said:
I think that this is more of an issue geared towards the question of ownership. Countries are offshoots of individuals owning land; it seems apparent that it is 'human nature' to own things, and because of that we've started taking large plots of lands and naming them, giving them invisible territory lines and declaring them the possesion of certain indivduals.

The source of this is probably due to survival of the fittest, like most things.
Click to expand...

Its definitely not human nature to own things. For most of human history, humans didn't own things. Oh, you said "human nature". I'm hoping that means you share my sentiments on the stupidity of "human nature" as it is popular constructed?

Survival of the fittest makes it sound like they are more fit to survive. I'd call it survival of the luckiest.
 
A human being's desire to be free extends only as far as their ability to trust.
 
I don't think the need to own is inherent in human nature. I also don't think that stealing and fighting and arguing are inherent in human nature.

I think these things are products of industrialized society in which land is owned and goods are produced and profits are based on exploitation and competition. Actually, it all probably goes even further back than industrialization.. Back to the advent of the Bronze Age and the agrarian society.

Crap. Dragon beat me to the post.
 
Yeah, I agree with that. And in order for that to occur, people would be living collectively. As Dragon mentioned, in something like a band society.

Do you think it's possible that humans will return to living in small bands as hunter-gatherer nomads?

I suppose what I'm getting at is anarchoprimitivism.
 
Man is a political animal...that's what Aristotle said.

There are some people that can live without being ruled, but generally, to live without being ruled means that everyone must be just and respectful. Government is not necessarily set in place to limit; it's set in place to protect. Locke's theories about the proper use of government were outlined as the need to protect the rights to property; the right to self, to labor, to possessions and land. Without government, these things could be unjustly manipulated and/or dominated, which would be detrimental to society as a whole.

In order for society or individuals to properly live without an established form of government, there would have to be few people and an understanding of and respect for etiquette. Not all people naturally consider what is good for their neighbor over what is good for themselves...stealing, murder, rape, and generally lawlessness could easily ensue, and without any form of justice or any means to enforce it, there would be chaos. To enforce it on an organized level would be the beginning of government...and thus, we're back to square one. That's why anarchy has such a negative rep. in our society.


So, for the most part, no. I don't believe most people or general society as a whole could live without government.
 
History has demonstrated that small localized groups and communities will slowly be eradicated by an aggressive centralized force. The United States and its genocide of the original native inhabitants is the perfect example of how this occurs.
 
Yeah...it's really too bad, though. I think society is at its best in small, personal communities.
 
I fully agree. Sadly, in the current state the world, it is completely impossible.
 
Satya said:
History has demonstrated that small localized groups and communities will slowly be eradicated by an aggressive centralized force. The United States and its genocide of the original native inhabitants is the perfect example of how this occurs.
Click to expand...

Bloody Yanks always spoiling everything! :yell:
 
Agreed that nations are crap. So ok if we all revert to small sustainable tribes we need to keep the internet going, so as to ensure the spread of scientific advancement and understanding. How much infrastruture and $ do you need to keep the interwebs going?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back