I do not believe the desire to oppress is part of human nature. It's behavior learned in the family environment, where almost invariably adults oppress children in some way and this is reinforced by religion and the education and political systems.
If there were a natural desire for structure and order it wouldn't have to be taught to children, would it?
Of course adults can oppress children, but they can choose not to and I made that choice a long time ago before I became a mother.
I have no idea what your last sentence means: would you care to explain? I'm not a prisoner of anything or anyone and I don't have a provider, whatever that is!
I think we first desired structure and order to protect ourselves. If people are allowed to do whatever they want, many will do so at others' expense.
Theft and murder would often be beneficial to an individual and his/her family.
But crime is detrimental to groups of humans. It perpetuates endless cycles of revenge, hatred, and killing- chaos. Humans could have been wiped out had we not naturally gravitated towards enforcing laws to curb the natural greed of individuals.
The moral compass that we take for granted was, in part, passed down after we learned from our mistakes. Generally, good is seen as what helps. Evil is what hurts.
The laws could be decided by the group, but if it were only up to equal individuals to enforce the law, we'd end up in the same criminal cycle.
To have a stable coexistence, people decided to put their individual power behind good leaders who ideally would represent them, and enforce a solid system of laws to punish crime and protect the innocent.
Oppression results from anyone in authority taking advantage of naturally arising systems, like families and governments, by using the dependence of the people under them to unjustly take extra privileges.
Oppression and corruption are closely related. If greed, or let's say, using selfish means to acquire more power, safety, and resources for oneself or one's children, is natural, then so is oppression.
"You're a prisoner of your provider", is quite literal.
For example, if the employer who provides someone with a job tells them to do something, they do it, because at a core level, they need employment to survive in society.
If they don't like that, they can run off, and live in the wild without depending on anything from society.
I myself was trapped by a parent. So long as I did not have a means of provision aside from him, I was his prisoner, accountable to him and at his whims. Money- the ability to provide for myself, would have freed me from oppression.
Lengthiness is fine when it's as well expressed as your post, whether or not I agree with you.
I see what you mean about being trapped by the provider: I guess I'm "trapped" by the government welfare system which provides most of my income, in that if I cheat the system (which I don't) or don't notify them of my casual work earnings, I'd lose my pension, but none of that is difficult to comply with.
Yep, I do so what you mean! Right now I'm trapped in a rental home which isn't safe, with a landlord who's ignoring requests to do essential repairs after a small house fire. If I told him what I think of him and his silly religion (he's a mormon as well as a moron) he'd almost certainly not renew my lease and with the housing situation here I'd be homeless.
I am an Anarchist in the sense that I neither exercise power over others or allow others to exercise power over me, except when I have no choice and I am totally opposed to hierarchical structures of any kind.
I don't believe Anarchism is possible in a highly populated society, but it's certainly possible in small groups and in movements. During the Spanish Civil War some regions ran on Anarchist principles, including farms and factories, and there's one Spanish town which still does. I've seen it work very well politically, for example at blockades against uranium mines. It requires people to be genuinely committed to consensus decision making and to respecting others.
I think men should subjugate themselves to women
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I do not believe the desire to oppress is part of human nature. It's behavior learned in the family environment, where almost invariably adults oppress children in some way and this is reinforced by religion and the education and political systems.
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I think that most of the places where oppression is reinforced were created by our natural desire and need for structure and order.
Adults can oppress, because naturally children are dependent on them for care and guidance.
I've begun to think that you're a prisoner of your provider.
--
Ellenna
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
bigbudchonga
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If there were a natural desire for structure and order it wouldn't have to be taught to children, would it?
Of course adults can oppress children, but they can choose not to and I made that choice a long time ago before I became a mother.
I have no idea what your last sentence means: would you care to explain? I'm not a prisoner of anything or anyone and I don't have a provider, whatever that is!
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think we first desired structure and order to protect ourselves. If people are allowed to do whatever they want, many will do so at others' expense.
Theft and murder would often be beneficial to an individual and his/her family.
But crime is detrimental to groups of humans. It perpetuates endless cycles of revenge, hatred, and killing- chaos. Humans could have been wiped out had we not naturally gravitated towards enforcing laws to curb the natural greed of individuals.
The moral compass that we take for granted was, in part, passed down after we learned from our mistakes. Generally, good is seen as what helps. Evil is what hurts.
The laws could be decided by the group, but if it were only up to equal individuals to enforce the law, we'd end up in the same criminal cycle.
To have a stable coexistence, people decided to put their individual power behind good leaders who ideally would represent them, and enforce a solid system of laws to punish crime and protect the innocent.
Oppression results from anyone in authority taking advantage of naturally arising systems, like families and governments, by using the dependence of the people under them to unjustly take extra privileges.
Oppression and corruption are closely related. If greed, or let's say, using selfish means to acquire more power, safety, and resources for oneself or one's children, is natural, then so is oppression.
"You're a prisoner of your provider", is quite literal.
For example, if the employer who provides someone with a job tells them to do something, they do it, because at a core level, they need employment to survive in society.
If they don't like that, they can run off, and live in the wild without depending on anything from society.
I myself was trapped by a parent. So long as I did not have a means of provision aside from him, I was his prisoner, accountable to him and at his whims. Money- the ability to provide for myself, would have freed me from oppression.
P.S: Sorry about the lengthiness.
--
Ellenna
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Lengthiness is fine when it's as well expressed as your post, whether or not I agree with you.
I see what you mean about being trapped by the provider: I guess I'm "trapped" by the government welfare system which provides most of my income, in that if I cheat the system (which I don't) or don't notify them of my casual work earnings, I'd lose my pension, but none of that is difficult to comply with.
Yep, I do so what you mean! Right now I'm trapped in a rental home which isn't safe, with a landlord who's ignoring requests to do essential repairs after a small house fire. If I told him what I think of him and his silly religion (he's a mormon as well as a moron) he'd almost certainly not renew my lease and with the housing situation here I'd be homeless.
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Earlier, you kind of said you were an anarchist? Might I ask why, and how you think society could maintain anarchy?
--
Ellenna
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I am an Anarchist in the sense that I neither exercise power over others or allow others to exercise power over me, except when I have no choice and I am totally opposed to hierarchical structures of any kind.
I don't believe Anarchism is possible in a highly populated society, but it's certainly possible in small groups and in movements. During the Spanish Civil War some regions ran on Anarchist principles, including farms and factories, and there's one Spanish town which still does. I've seen it work very well politically, for example at blockades against uranium mines. It requires people to be genuinely committed to consensus decision making and to respecting others.
I agree crastecrush oppression, it's too common a theme for it not to be natural.
--
Ellenna
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Crastecrush?????
--
bigbudchonga
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
that's the person you're talking to's online name
--
Ellenna
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thank you, I shouldn't respond so quickly, should i?
--
bigbudchonga
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No it's fine. I thought nothing of it.