Lao-tzu

[NickV]

“I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.”

Reading over this passage in my philosophy book made me think of the SFA here. Would a leader "letting go" of governing factors lead to people bettering those factors or anarchy? Consider that this has never been attempted...

 

The poor would rage at the rich and a riot would happen.
That's my opinion anyway..

In the UK riots broke out because the police were occupied with other riots.. If there was nothing to govern anyone then all the scumbags would go looting.

 

[NickV]

The poor would rage at the rich and a riot would happen.
That's my opinion anyway..

In the UK riots broke out because the police were occupied with other riots.. If there was nothing to govern anyone then all the scumbags would go looting.

Well yes, but that's short term. How would this work in a long term situation. Of course chaos would follow it, but would society be better after the chaos or would it just stay chaotic? Lao-tzu presents some interesting points.

 

[Divine_God]

Well yes, but that's short term. How would this work in a long term situation. Of course chaos would follow it, but would society be better after the chaos or would it just stay chaotic? Lao-tzu presents some interesting points.

As utopian as this sounds, there are simply too many fuck-ups ( would put it more lightly but it's true ) that will never reach this type of "enlightenment" if you will.

 

[Emperor Nero]

I agree with the Aristotelian theory of state and human nature. Aristotle said humans are by nature political creatures and that they seek to build the state or some sort of governing organization, and that the states job is to preserve the villages and the family. He also said that states are a reflection of those who govern it, and that state becomes perverted when the rulers only wan for themselves instead of the general good. Even if you eliminated the state those that survived would eventually begin to create mini-states that will govern small bodies of people like clans or villages.

 

[nodnarbusn]

Anarchy would ensue, atleast in the great majority of places. People are inherently greedy and would look out for themselves leaving the have nots in a worse position than they currently are in.

Even if you eliminated the state those that survived would eventually begin to create mini-states that will govern small bodies of people like clans or villages.

I agree with this, its been proven time and time again within the animal kingdom with any social intelligent creature that there will always be a "top dog" per se running the roost, humans arent any different at first it would be the biggest and strongest stepping forward taking control then the more intelligent manipulators would be manipulating the current leaders from behind the scenes bending their will to their own. And eventually we would be right back where we started from. Anarchy is a dream, a glorious one but still a dream. All it would take is one person to fuck this up and there would be millions lining up for just that oppurtunity, it all comes down to greed EVERYONE wants more than the other.