Well, perhaps the quality of this knowledge leaves something to be desired. Whose interests are the information conglomerates primarily concerned with, their own or the masses'?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Since we obviously need quite a few basic things (sex, food, knowledge, certain emotions), there is no better basis for a market than such needs. In fact, if we look at almost every known society on earth, such markets seem to appear quite automatically. So human needs tend to take on a life of their own and become unrecognizable in both form and function. Just as most food is junk, most knowledge offered is junk as well (extending that to things like sex, sport and religion must be done on your own account ). And yet, it's seller's market because the buyer makes demand without distinguishing a whole lot.

So yes, perhaps the quality of knowledge leaves alot to be desired and the information is indeed supplied by interests that exist for the sake of those very same interests. But it doesn't change the basics and as far as I'm concerned, the basic nature of man is what prevents non-hierarchical societies like anarchism.

IMO, the notion of demand is a self-serving misrepresentation. People have a tendency to do things that are contrary to their higher interests and to pander to such tendencies is nothing less than debauchment. Such conduct results in vice having greater influence than virtue, which is ruinous to the long-term interests of society.

Re the nature of man, it's important to recognize that human nature is malleable so that which makes something like anarchy unfeasible today might very well cease to be a factor at some point in the future.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I actually don't think human nature is all that malleable when it comes to living within reach of one another. Put two or more people together and they'll repeat the same patterns of interaction as anyone else does and ever had. We can do little else. And why should we? We're still here.

Sure, you can use the 'argument' that I'm indoctrinated and can't imagine things differently. However, I also can't imagine an earthworm with legs without serious consideration that it might not be an earthworm I imagined, after all.

So far as I'm aware, Chomsky pretty well destroyed Skinner re the nature vs nurture debate. Would you dispute that?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Chomsky's rebuttal of Skinner is done on the basis of showing Skinner to fail empirically on his claims regarding human behavior. While Chomsky in large parts did indeed manage to re-categorize Skinner's work from empirical deduction to assumption, it only says something about Skinner's work. Not about Chomsky's. After all, Chomsky is the dude who claims certain parts of linguistic grammar to be innate, based on the mere observation that kids learn it in a very short time. Now, that's an assumption if I ever heard one.

Anyhow, while I could probably yack for hours on this subject, it doesn't really have any bearing on what I'm saying. Nurture, whether it applies to humans, chimps or herings (what does a "school of fish" otherwise mean?), is of course also restricted by nature. That's what I tried to allude to with the earthworm thingy. I could also have said something like this: You may be able to convince people that humans are better off with two heads - and in time an entire culture may sprout from and around that idea - but it doesn't really change the fact that they have, actually, one head each.

More to the point, though, you may be able to convince people that they can live without any kind of hierarchy (with or "without" the legitimate one that determines the legitimacy of other hierarchies and the legitimate one that determines the legitimacy of that one and the legitimate one that .. etc.) but as long as they need to eat, shit and have kids and do all that while living among each other, it doesn't change the fact that hierarchies will arise. And on top of the worst hierarchy of them all could be the ideology that says that hierarchies aren't needed.

Now, if people can do all they need to do without ever getting in contact with other people then it's an entirely different story. Then you don't even need the latter.

You're getting confused as I mentioned legitimacy in regard to authority, not hiearchy.

So, where's the reasoning that supports your assertion that hierarchy is an absolute essential to human survival?

I'll certainly allow that from a time and motion studies perspective, hierarchy facilitates increased productivity, but I've seen nothing in this thread that supports the contention that it's essential to human survival.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

You did indeed but isn't it in fact a hierarchical construct you're referring to with 'legitimate authority'? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't authority that's designed to instruct people of right and wrong and accepted as being legitimate in imposing and sanctioning such instructions merely synonomous for a hierarchical structure?

I don't think I've said that hierarchy is an absolute essential to human survival. I've actually just aired the opposite that if humans are able to live without getting into contact with one another then hierarchical structures become meaningless. What I've suggested is that hierarchy is a product of social activity, so, if anything, it's social activity that's essential to human survival.

As for supporting my assertion that hierarchy is a product of social activity, I haven't seen support for the assertion that the suggestion of a non-hierarchical society does not result in a hierarchical society, the ideological foundation of which is the inevitable top dog. And that I take as support for my assertion.

Only if it entails forced instruction. The instilling of values would for the most part be accomplished by the setting of examples rather than by telling.


I believe I addressed this when I stated that it is humanity rather than anarchy that should be protected. Further, what ideology do you refer to? So far as I'm aware, there is no rigid anarchist ideology set in stone and anarchy would be strictly for those who wished to live in such a fashion; where, then, is the necessity for hierarchy?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I'm sorry but I can't let go of the notion that whenever there's something legitimate, there must be something illegitimate, and that between two or more individuals there must be forced instruction in order to maintain the balance. If you're all alone with your own conscience then you can talk about, to and with your instilled values to maintain such a balance but among more consciences, it just doesn't work. Humans are too complex for it to work.

Someone will eventually punch you in the nose (literally or figuratively) and it will not only have to be settled if it was a legitimate or illegitimate act but it will have to be settled by an authority greater than all involved. It doesn't matter if that authority is created by all involved - or the commonality as you said earlier. That's irrelevant. What matters is that the authority will have to exist if an issue shall even remotely be considered either legitimate or illegitimate.



I believe we've both addressed our respective views more than once and, as far as I can see, we've not reached any kind of common(ality) ground. I suspect there'll be more repetitions to come should we continue on the subject

I'm actually referring to any kind of ideology but, as I've also said before, anarchism is the only ideology I know of that pretends to be able to function without hierarchy and authority, including that of itself.

An honor system, which is essentially what anarchism is, requires honor, but does it necessitate hierarchy? No, as there is no ranking of individuals and no elites. All are empowered rather than a select few. The only authority is that which is conferred by righteousness or diminished by acts of degradation. Obviously, such a system would require that there be agreement as to what constitutes honor and degradation, but I fail to see this as being an impossibility, complexity or no complexity. It simply requires that one have a certain degree of enlightenment. You, IMO, seem to be arguing that such a degree of enlightenment is an impossibility but I fail to see any reasoning which supports such a contention. If one takes the theory of evolution and extrapolates it far enough into the future then we will indeed arrive at a point where human beings are evolved far beyond our present state of being, and the only question I see is whether or not we'll manage to survive long enough to reach such a point.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson