Gilby and Gandhi

[JJuggle]

I'm finally getting around to actually reading some Gandhi, and I came across this and I couldn't help but think of Gilby. And how little I know about Gandhi.

"The power to control national life through national representatives is called political power. Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours. In an ideal state there will be no political institution and therefore no political power. That is why Thoreau has said in his classic statement that that government is best which governs least." - Gandhi, Enlightened Anarchy - A Political Ideal, 1939

[XCcrev]

I'm finally getting around to actually reading some Gandhi, and I came across this and I couldn't help but think of Gilby. And how little I know about Gandhi.

"The power to control national life through national representatives is called political power. Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours. In an ideal state there will be no political institution and therefore no political power. That is why Thoreau has said in his classic statement that that government is best which governs least." - Gandhi, Enlightened Anarchy - A Political Ideal, 1939

This Utopia is purely theoretical and could only be achieved in a perfect world where there is no sin. This could never ever actually be implemented.

[U-Turn]

I don't believe this, because it implies that organization and power are only to control the evil impulses of evil people.

There are other things that require larger-level organization, choice, and direction, such as distribution of food, electricity, disaster response and relief, shared use of national resources, etc etc.. These issues exist whether man is good or bad.

Simple atomic decision-making, however friendly, is not sufficient, except, perhaps, for sparsely-populated benign rural environments.

[Gilby]

This Utopia is purely theoretical and could only be achieved in a perfect world where there is no sin. This could never ever actually be implemented.

Correct, so what's missing from the statement is the defending of one's property, in which all rights are derived. When teaming up with others to provide for a defense, one needs to be careful not to let that organization over reach and break from its purpose.

[uni_jim]

This Utopia is purely theoretical and could only be achieved in a perfect world where there is no sin. This could never ever actually be implemented.


the idea and agument for and against the posibility of a utopia was a major part of my English course last semester. Basically, the teacher shared your opinion, but i think that people learn to sin, and if from birth people were taught to be empathetic and know why things are wrong or immoral (and live by this) the need for laws would be lost, and would therefore result in a utopia. This would not work in the modern world due to the large populations and coldness between people in an urban environment. If groups of 50 to 100 people lived together in a village-like community where everyone knows everyone like their family, crime would be almost nonexistant, given that the community shares common values and ideals.

also, as a spinoff from the small communities, industrialization would be impossible, and people would depend on highly efficient farming practices to feed themselves and their families.

look at that, i just solved crime, global warming, and world hunger all in one theory!

[unisteve]

I don't believe this, because it implies that organization and power are only to control the evil impulses of evil people.

There are other things that require larger-level organization, choice, and direction, such as distribution of food, electricity, disaster response and relief, shared use of national resources, etc etc.. These issues exist whether man is good or bad.
I don't think what Ghandi is saying precludes people working together for a common goal. In this case, whether man is good or bad is irrelevant.

What we're talking about, I believe, is a world in which rules and organizations that tell people not to do things that will harm others--that tell people how to live by telling them what not to do--need not exist because we'd all control ("rule") whatever negative impulses we might have.

The organizations you listed are or would be responsible for spreading services which, I would argue, would benefit anyone who had access to them. The goal of these organizations, ostensibly and hopefully, is not to control others through gaining political power.

[jagur]

This Utopia is purely theoretical and could only be achieved in a perfect world where there is no sin. This could never ever actually be implemented.

how can you argue theory possibility with such a base notion of no "sin"? The word itself is rooted in nothing but theory.

[AlanChambers]

but i think that people learn to sin, and if from birth people were taught to be empathetic and know why things are wrong or immoral (and live by this) the need for laws would be lost, and would therefore result in a utopia

I suggest you read Stephen Pinker's 'Blank Slate' for his complete destruction of the notions that all human behaviour is learned, and that "natural" (read "good") human behaviour is corrupted by society.


Al

[maestro8]

Correct, so what's missing from the statement is the defending of one's property, in which all rights are derived. When teaming up with others to provide for a defense, one needs to be careful not to let that organization over reach and break from its purpose.
Replace "defend" with "build" here. How is a society going to capitalize on its collective wealth without stepping on a few members' toes?

If we were to break society down to an atomic level, we'd lose a lot of capacity for development, IMHO.

[Gilby]

Replace "defend" with "build" here. How is a society going to capitalize on its collective wealth without stepping on a few members' toes?

Of course you can build on one's property. The basic property being one's own body, you exert labor from the use of that property on other property and create wealth (ie. well-being).

If we were to break society down to an atomic level, we'd lose a lot of capacity for development, IMHO.

How so?

The basis of the quote from Ghandi in my opinion, is that political power is coercion. People will engage in commerce with others to meet each others needs, but this has no need to be coercive.

[BillyTheMountain]

It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours.

YOur neighbors just have to be open to 3 days of Peace, Love, and Music, to allow you to put the Woodstock Music Festival on next door.

This Utopia is purely theoretical and could only be achieved in a perfect world where there is no sin. This could never ever actually be implemented.

What a downer you are. You have created your own stinking reality, an now you must live in it.

Correct, so what's missing from the statement is the defending of one's property, in which all rights are derived. When teaming up with others to provide for a defense, one needs to be careful not to let that organization over reach and break from its purpose.

Like the USA did too long ago to remember?

If groups of 50 to 100 people lived together in a village-like community where everyone knows everyone like their family, crime would be almost nonexistant, given that the community shares common values and ideals.

also, as a spinoff from the small communities, industrialization would be impossible, and people would depend on highly efficient farming practices to feed themselves and their families.

look at that, i just solved crime, global warming, and world hunger all in one theory!

Wrong! Even when groups of 50 to 100 people lived together in a village-like community where everyone knew everyone like their family, crime existed. The shared value was survival of the fittest!

[Gilby]

Like the USA did too long ago to remember? You got that right. Oh, if only the government followed its charter and the rule of law.

[harper]

I suggest you read Stephen Pinker's 'Blank Slate' for his complete destruction of the notions that all human behaviour is learned, and that "natural" (read "good") human behaviour is corrupted by society.


I suggest that you read Daniel Pinkwater's Guys From Space for no particular reason other than it is entertaining.