I think you missed the point, people realize that a cup is a great idea, they don't need anyone to convince them of it, they understand it, they see that sticking together is a great idea, it's evident, they recognize good ideas, great ideas, and adapt them, animals do this, everything does this. That is why ideas if they are great, if they are good, will not need you to convince them or argue it fro them, it will be evident. But I want to know, what idea would not be good or has not been good enough that only force will help it along?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Is democracy a good idea? Is freedom of speech a good idea? Is decentralized banking a good idea? Are basic human rights a good idea? Is promotion by a merit based system a good idea rather than a nepotist system?
If you think about the history of countries all over the world and the steps that were taken to remove royalty and other forms governments that had dynasties of family lines you see the trend of force. While there will always be good ideas that most people can agree on being good ideas, there will always be resistance that wants to hold the common good back for a larger gain for a smaller group of people.
Rights and changes have to be fought for. As long as you think that all you have to do is show people how good an idea is and wait and eventually everyone will see that it is the way to go, then all you will be doing is waiting. A catalyst must be created to push people forward. You can blame cognitive dissonance or whatever, but the fact of the matter is no good idea will be put into play without force because it will always disrupt something else that is going on in another lifestyle.
Do me a favor and give me some examples of good ideas that did not require force to implement.
For the record math has been forced on people, one example would be Peter the Great forcing the nobles to learn math, science, and other specific subjects to keep their positions.
And ok, we can specify each topic down to the exact meaning I am talking about, but it would then only allow for specific holes to be picked at in the idea. How can one debate if basic human rights are a good idea? Like I said everything is somehow going to impact another's lifestyle and it will be viewed as change, change is not normally an easy thing for people to come to terms with. You say that Zomia has lives in anarchy, but I am positive that everyone there did not just think hey, this is a good idea, we should all do this. I'm sure people pushed agendas and aggressively pursued the goal of making anarchy their system. One ruler will take over another ruler but the following is usually a more popular ruler that the people can relate to more than the previous.
I thought I used pretty simple examples, but it seems that they were to broad for you to give thorough answers.
This is so funny to me because I feel like I'm debating myself. So I feel as if I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said before I am not really about the use of violence or extreme force. I believe in leading by example and letting the pack follow. I also believe that if you force something on a person, although they may pick up the idea you forced for a while, they will ultimately go back to their original routine when the influence decreases. However, if you use a small amount of force to start the spark of interest..then at that point you will achieve a greater success rate of conversion. Sometimes people have to be forced to look at something or they would have never looked at it at all. Many opportunities are missed because people don't take the extra step to be persistent but not relentless.
But I do not believe in a society where one puts themselves over the community and still "doesn't believe in some are allowed to do what some are not allowed to do." How can I put myself above the community but still say that I care about what everyone else is allowed to do. With that mindset why would you care what anyone in the community did? Or is it just a battle of "well, he did it too" in the the culture.
The Zomia State does not have a written language and there is still division among the people and it is not a happy utopia that you are, to me, describing. From what I researched, it seems that the social building practices and social ties that the community imposes on it's people is what keeps the structure. In one article I read it stated that, "kinship systems are based on overlapping and redundant relationships that create a strong social network and limit the formalization of power." I will concede that these people did leave many different areas to escape other forms of government, but I still believe they are just follow another rule system that forces them to limit power. In my opinion that is just power being used form a different angle. And division is still present in these lands. The people that do the farming in the valleys consider the people in the mountains, of the already treacherous lands, as primitive and living ancestors.
Nothing is perfect, but it is the method of weighing pros and cons that helps the decision making process. If one does not have goal, then what is one living for? Some systems are more goal oriented and others are made for those who want to simply exist. If you think about it, how many times a day do you have to force yourself to do something because you would rather be doing something that's unproductive or against what you had planned for the day?