Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  A group of good problem solvers can't match someone like Ceaser who has an armed force and can simply kill them. |
Why not? What if this spectacular group of problem-solvers determined a brilliant method for constructing forcefield that prevented this warband from entering their sanctuary? Wouldn't that be considered "matching" them?
The warband is a problem. Why can't it be solved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha If someone quits smoking because he doesn't want to die to cancer that might be a fear based decision. But that doesn't make it bad decision. |
Certainly, a fear-based decision is not necessarily a bad decision. But neither is it necessarily a good decision. A more proper reason to quit smoking is so that you are therefore more capable to live your life powerfully and through that, help other people.
Which would you rather have? A former smoker who now shirks from train cars and power lines because they might cause cancer, too? Who visits the doctor monthly anticipating that he'll have lung cancer anyways? Or a former smoker who instead works as a singer or orator, motivating other people to do greater things?
Fear tends towards shutting out one's neighbor. America, the nation of locked doors: greatest in the world, yes?
P.S. *chuckles* I didn't read Keith's post until after I wrote this. I'll leave it, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith The mediator would jointly be the employee of the disputing parties (rather than an adjudicator who could impose fiat judgments) and would work with both parties to seek a "win-win or no deal" solution. |
Certainly, a win/win solution is surely desired, and I am sure that conscious people (your definition is a poor one, but I'll instead go by Steve's description
) would seek that in any case. It is thus the extreme scenarios I wish to contend, which would result in a "no deal", as you call it, you would have disagreements which an adjucator incapable of handing down a fiat judgement could not do anything about.
Furthermore, your solution to the City A versus City B problem is still a direct or representative democracy, not an anarchy, which is, like many atypical constructs of theory, decidedly elusive.
As you say, perfection is not possible. Neither is a government a perfect solution; but it
is a solution. At least the government could be resented as a faceless entity.
I should note that I do agree with you, Keith, all the way up to the point where you say government is thus abolished. Which is why that's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about.