Competing societies grasp at every new invention, to have an advantage over rivals. If an invention can be abused, it will be by someone. Therefore, either we destroy ourselves or we surrender our privacy/freedom totally.
Yes but it is competition that is ultimately the savior of everyone. As long as people remain free to compete against each other, ethically, there can be no domination. Domination implies that one person is in control of every action of society.
This is impossible and can only come about thruogh individuals acting on behalf of someone else. The ideas must be accepted enough to be enforced. This is how conspiracies are possible. This is my main thesis to the abolition of government because it must inherently be anti-competition and dominate by force and coercion.
The ideal society for doing this would be a worldwide government that was, relative to any individual or small group, omnipotent.
World wide government has the same implications as every monopoly.
Imagine having no where to defect to.[/quote]
If you’ve read Freud’s ‘Civilisation and Its Discontents’, then you see that he makes the same basic point. Now take a small portion of humanity that would actually implement the use of truly catastrophic means, such as WMDs. The only solution is for society to become continually more repressive, as Freud points out.
Freud had rather a dim view of humanity, yet I think the combination of the few truly insane discontents with increased capacity for destruction must lead either to our end or to total domination.
Of course, a world of total domination would be quite evil, as John the Savage discovers in ‘Brave New World’. A world of unlimited sex and drugs can be a hell.
Would he be better to be simply dead or to have no choices whatsoever?