Fine, you can't do an aircraft carrier as a craftsman. But you can do it as craftsmen. Vice say how AFAIK auto assembly is typically done, for example where one guy is responsible for bolting in the right front seat, and that's all he does, all day long.

Wondering what this has to do with scaling the society in general, and in particular how it prevents or mitigates a class struggle from emerging.

(If I've been intruding, and you're really only interested in talking with DR about things under this topic, just say so. It's your journal, you should get to do as you please with it, and I'll apologize for... not being able to read your mind! ;)

p.s.:

"put in a cloverleaf at your intersection of choice"? What. The. Fuck!?

I used to be floored by your astounding level of obtuseness, and not in a good way. But now I'm in amazement of it! :)

I wonder what technology you're thinking of that is too taxing on the human brain to be done by one person. Or what you're thinking is solved by people specializing more than we already are.

I'd like to see us instead being a craftsman society. Then maybe there'd be pride in quality. I'd rather things lasted and repairs were cheaper than a higher initial cost, vice cheap junk that we just throw away when it breaks. Capitalism on its own will make everything, and everyone, disposable. People ought to watch out for that.

I also wonder how all of this prevents a class struggle from emerging.

Maybe you meant to answer someone else, as I made no reference to a problem of scale. But on that topic of your link, of division of labor, I side with Karl Marx. Capitalism's "progressive" force towards never-ending greater and greater efficiencies, no matter how dehumanizing, is a major downside of this economic system that needs to be kept thoroughly in check. Capitalism should serve us, not the other way around.

And I have no idea what that other stuff means.

I don't get it.

A la what I posted in smitty's latest JE, I don't think there's anything that can limit your "limited but strong", given human nature.

Even when you start with an uncomplicated arrangement, of society into a single order, some part of it has to have power over the rest, to maintain and enforce the rules of the society.

But people will always strive to live a more comfortable life. With a tap into the wealth of all, necessary to support governing operations, greed (the bad kind) eventually compounds until it manfests in the governing sector of the society granting more exclusive privileges to itself than the ones it started with that were necessary for it to do its special job.

When awareness of this inevitably grows, it attracts more and more people to want to join them, who then implement more of exactly what they got into it for, causing a snowballing of growing wealth and privilege in that sector, transforming it into an order of its own.

And consequently it repulses some people, who oppose and resist the others' growing privilege over them and at their expense.

I don't see how it cannot be the case that the real class struggle is and will always be between the governors and the governed, where economics is just one facet of the issue, and not the actual issue itself.

But "limited but strong" may be an oxymoron. How you do keep them from gradually intervening more and more, if they're strong? Or I guess how do you keep them from getting stronger?

p.s. And I don't mean to imply anything like I think it's like Lefties' stupid idea of a "hate crime", where somehow the crime is worse if there's something more sinister going on behind it. The damage is the damage, so the crime is the crime. Being primarily motivated by trashing the system versus primarily by empowering oneself doesn't make the crime any worse. It just means there's something additional the voters ought to be watching out for from that "representative".

It's not near as sinister as intentionally trying to give capitalism a few good licks, because one despises it. But it is criminal.

Not to me. To me, "Left" and "Right" have rich and highly contrasting meanings. I might partially agree however on the "Democrat" vs. "Republican" thing, esp. since non-Progressives are such pariahs in both parties (if they exist at all anymore in the D's). And while I might agree that the Progressives in each have both targeted constituencies for votes and cash (kinda redundant, since both are loosely "speech" when it's about politics), less so on the carving and harvesting, as I consider the GOP to have been/be doing a very poor job of building up or maintaining their target GOP Progressivism -sympathetic constituency.

I.e. I while I think there's some truth in what you're saying here, I don't think they're really equivalent enough to be "equivalencing" them like that. (Considering the two sides as basically equivalent can also be a "cheap distraction", seemingly only perpetuated by one side, while they lunge for your wallet and rights.)

A club was never meant to be used as a scalpel. I just love it when Conservatives talk about how unanalytical or how untruthful some position or approach on the Left is. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS!!! It's just supposed to win them power (so that ultimately they can perpetually chase after every one of their stupid ideas of "fairness"). Lefties don't give two shits about ethnic minorities; it's just about handing out from amongst a set of goodies, to cobble together enough of a coalition to grow their powerbase. Once the Left completely owns things, it won't matter if your skin is purple and your sexual preference is for pandas, you'll be robbed from and redistributed to just the same as everyone else.

That link sounds good, but it's an ideal, where everyone in the society is unified spiritually, like say the Amish.

But then what keeps such a community from being ripped to shreds by another community of a different mindset? A higher order level of governance, which, not having the luxury of presiding over a state of shared values, must try to remain neutral*, and only exist to protect our rights.

So maybe subsidiarity at the micro level, and libertarianism at the macro level, might be the least-worst.

*And must be kept small, so as not to be able to run roughshod over lower levels. Like overstepping a supporting role and trying to take over solving problems that are better addressed at a lower level.

I fail to see your point. All government in this life is government by man, so is doomed to failure. This is because we cannot resist the temptation to mistreat others. Most of the ability to mistreat others comes from having power over others. More power over others means more ability to mistreat them. Government is power, so small government is the least-worst.

BTW, note that the thing you rail against Christians about, stubborn hubris, is exactly what you're exhibiting. You've become that which you hate. Better to take a more deferential stance, and understand that you don't have all the answers, and be less judmental (in your case about God and religion) as you'd wish His followers would be (about the kinds of things they're so negative and high-and-mighty about). We shouldn't be at war about things that are mistakes. (If I'm going to go to war with you, it'll be over Leftism, that man-made, Satan-stoked false religion that is actually the world's #1 religion.)

I apologize again for the pain that my side has wrongly inflicted upon you. I wish you wouldn't blame God for that.

I thought you insisted that you're actually a woman, just born with a male body. Then even if some others mistake your wearing women's clothes as a sin, God knows the truth about you.

God made you the way you are, it's not a mistake, and whether I understand it or not, I'm commanded to love you. Christians need to obey God more, and know their place (while God gave me a brain to reason with, and communicated to me certain prohibitions, when things get complicated, we should leave the judging to the Judge).

He could've sanitized everything, but without temptation to disobey, how could there ever be a choice presented to us to ever not follow Him. Free Will would be meaningless then, because there'd be no possible way to ever exercise it, if the only things there are, are all things that are allowed.

Your skewed thinking on this subject is in your focusing on the one (1) thing that was disallowed. We lived in paradise with everything taken care of and not a worry in the world, and there was all of one whole prohibition in the whole place. So it's of course highly imbalanced thinking to paint the situation then as some kind of raw deal.

So the Garden shows us two things: 1) God loves us and wants us to be in paradise, and 2) what bigger fools are there than human beings. The takeaway is that God can provide paradise for us, and we certainly can't.

And that's fully how I expect Hell to be populated. Frankly, I'd have a hard time loving a god who sent people to Hell, no matter how justified. But I'm convinced He'll actually not need to send anyone, that the lost will voluntarily choose it on their own.

The rest of this is too galling for me, complaining about a totalitarian system when that's exactly what the Left is actually setting up. Satan has you guys tricked into building hell here on earth. And you're convinced the Left is about teh freedom. This is why I cut off my visibility of DR's and Fusta's comments on Slashdot, because I got tired of hearing about some irrevelent opposite-world.

Look, you've obviously got a lot of rage and hate built up over God, accumulated over probably a long time, and that couldn't be undone over one weekend. I'll just say that I wish you peace.