I do not disagree on any of your points. The question though is whether or not a socialist political system (I’m trying to reduce my usage of the word society) can sustain indefinitely if it’s do not try to exploit the system. Assuming everyone does their part (as defined by the state) and no one tries to get more than they are allotted (as defined by the state), will socialism necessarily collapse without competition for resources against neighboring states?
I understand that if it comes down to competition for resources against an anarchist state the socialist state will not stand much of a chance. However, my question is not about which has the competative advantage but just whether or not socialism necessitates collapse when left alone. It seems to me that the Amish are a perfect example illustrating that socialism can sustain itself when left alone.
Yes it can, but again it really depends on the persons definition of “life” “sustain itself”.
If a person’s goal is to live with the amish, kudos to him/her. If they want Zeitgeist where they can beg for they’re food at the computer, good for them.
If a person’s goal is to live in a mess like Freetown Christiana, again, go right ahead.
You need to clarify “collapse”.
History has shown that tyrannical states always “collapse”. It’s obvious that oppression, murder and theft can not be tolerated in a society that wants to grow.
I for one want progress, freedom, ability to pursue my career and most importantly money. I don’t see why anyone would differ with me, but then again I’m not anyone so I don’t understand them.
I think if people naturally choose to be enslaved or have childish views of the world, then good riddance.
I agree with you on pretty much all points here. It’s because everyone has a different set of desires that I find it useful to understand what people want from the rest of humanity. You have clearly stated that you want personal progress, freedom, etc. and I think knowing this is very beneficial when it comes to debating politics, hence why I created this thread: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/goals-for-society/17911
Though, it seems that most people don’t quite understand what I am asking due to my poor usage of the english language.
Regarding the Amish or Abbeys, they do not completely sustain themselves. They rely on supplies and material from outside sources (primarily capitalists). Without those sources, they would crumble even further.
Also, assuming that “everyone does their part (as defined by the state)” basically means you’re asking whether a poltical system can exist in a constant state of slavery. My view is that no, it cannot. The real goal of such a system is to destroy man’s mind. By removing choices and impeding free will and freedom, man’s mind is supressed. The more that happens, the worse off everyone becomes. Humans can’t survive without active use of our mind. Maybe we can leach off others for a while, but that’s about it.
Look at the millions of people who died as a result of Stalin and Mao’s centralized decision making – including huge famines. Everyone was doing their part as defined by the state, including “die!”.
Altruism isn’t voluntary. If it was, it would be charity, not altrusim. Altruism requires sacrifice – which means that you can’t get more out of it than you put into it. If everyone in a political system is sacrificing to everyone else, then the entire system in on a downward slope.
Oxford English Dictionary defines altrusim as “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” Disinterested means something you don’t really care about. To be selfless means putting the needs and wishes of others above your own – literally self-less, or without self – which leads to the destruction of self. The ultimate end is death.