Tribes, miltaries, religions, businesses, governments, political parties, courtrooms, sports teams… basically every kind of grouping of people is in a hierarchy. We don’t have hive minds, so we aren’t always going to agree on everything. When there’s disagreement, someone needs to make a decision. The person who decides is going to be higher in the hierarchy than the people who have to go along with that decision. It’s necessary for things to function.
Socialism is similar to a religion. “We just need to all believe the same thing and everything will just work out.” And also similar to religions, the belief that their group is more special and different from others mean they will tend to deny the hierarchy they’re in. The leader becomes sort of like the Pope, the infallible one that is of pure belief, so not above us in a hierarchy but the vessel by which we will achieve our perfect society.
But in the end it’s all the same hierarchical shit. Best we can do is have a system where we can vote out the people at the top of the hierarchy when they get too corrupted by the power.
“a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief”
No, not every hierarchy is tyrannical. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to vote out those above us in the hierarchy.
I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.
I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.
Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.
I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn’t “all that good”, after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?
Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your “fire bad” take?
You’re just talking about talking now, and aren’t making an effort to make any kind of point. Common tactic for people that have lost a debate but don’t want to admit it.
What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven’t said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.
And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!
Tribes, miltaries, religions, businesses, governments, political parties, courtrooms, sports teams… basically every kind of grouping of people is in a hierarchy. We don’t have hive minds, so we aren’t always going to agree on everything. When there’s disagreement, someone needs to make a decision. The person who decides is going to be higher in the hierarchy than the people who have to go along with that decision. It’s necessary for things to function.
Socialism is similar to a religion. “We just need to all believe the same thing and everything will just work out.” And also similar to religions, the belief that their group is more special and different from others mean they will tend to deny the hierarchy they’re in. The leader becomes sort of like the Pope, the infallible one that is of pure belief, so not above us in a hierarchy but the vessel by which we will achieve our perfect society.
But in the end it’s all the same hierarchical shit. Best we can do is have a system where we can vote out the people at the top of the hierarchy when they get too corrupted by the power.
No, not every hierarchy is tyrannical. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to vote out those above us in the hierarchy.
I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.
I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.
Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.
I graciously accept your concession that socialism isn’t all that good.
Still talking to someone else?
I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn’t “all that good”, after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?
Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your “fire bad” take?
You’re just talking about talking now, and aren’t making an effort to make any kind of point. Common tactic for people that have lost a debate but don’t want to admit it.
What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven’t said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.
And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!