Political Crossfire Forums

@Dharma

Once again, that makes no sense at all.

People already form alliances to prevent others from dominating them. That is egalitarian according to the definition of anthropologists - you have just tried to use it to support your ideology, by purposefully conflating it with the modern use of egalitarian, and hoping no one would notice.

The entire point of my argument is that the desire to form social hierarchies is innate, as is non-conscious decision-making, therefore, political equality cannot exist. Even in your supposedly egalitarian societies, political inequality was the name of the game - the only thing keeping one person from dominating the group is for others in the group to form yet other groups, who threaten violence if their interests are attacked. That isn't equality. Neither is the imposition of social roles onto women, handicapped, midgets, transgendered, etc., all of which is well-documented, as is the discipline faced by those within such groups who tried to disobey those roles.

It's like saying 19th Century women and blacks lived in an egalitarian society because some people opposed sexism and slavery and because they had roles, which if fulfilled, meant they wouldn't be punished.

I think the point being missed here with regards to ancestral society is that bowing to the collective is synonymous to bowing to a despot. That is one of the problems I have with idealist communism. It replaces one dictator with another, the collective. If you want true individual liberty, you have to go anarchy, though of course that introduces a new set of problems.

The problem isn't our not having an "ideal system", but rather that we don't have "ideal people". Any system will work with ideal people. What we need is a system that works with flawed people. People, who when given sovereignty as individuals or a collective, might burn witches.