when it has worked in history, it has been charectarised by happening in relatively small communities. what happens there, is that people who get any sort of authority or power get inspected personally by the people who they have authority over. that means, that if the person in power(western sheriff, or icelandic court man or what ever) misuses his capabilities, his power will decrease and the what happens when the communities grow is that it keeps getting harder to inspect those who inevitably end up in power, as the the subjects of power cant personally inspect the judges and enforcers of whatever law forms. and its magnified by media, which makes it even easier for those who get power to keep their clients fooled. the media gives people the delusion that they actually have control over the elite and keeps them content with government. now this doesnt mean that they dont revolt and protest against governments, just that any lawmakers that emerge have more authority over people then they naturally would and can get away with stuff that they otherwise wouldnt.what this means, is that the bigger and more anonymous a community is, the less possible anarchy becomes.i also thought of this in terms of evolutionary psychology. people evolved to live in tribes of dozen(s) of people. which means that we evolved psychological self sustainance systems appropriate for such groups of people. so the brain is evolved to solve the authority and law problems when groups are relatively small and people know each other.this can still happen in agricultural societies due to low density of population and people migrating very little so authority can be in check by its clients. this is also how i explain anarchy in iceland,ireland, wild west(it didnt have big cities back in the days of anarchy, did it?).there are some people who can realize the con of government and can even work actively against it, but the relatively constant(as it has evolved in our species) gaussian distribution of the ratio between amount of disappointment caused by government and contentment with lawmakers, and the capability of lawmakers to make the contentment part bigger than it would in a smaller society; make any protest futile.That was my brainstorming of the last couple of months, id like to hear your thoughts on it.
I'd look into Dunbar's number, right up your alley. I think at base you're talking about the problem of power in general. That is how do you ensure that power and responsibility are commensurate? this is a problem humanity hasn't solved yet. This is because once someone actually gets the power they no longer have any incentive not to abuse it. The best we've come up with so far is to make trade as free as possible. When everyone is trading with everyone else corruption becomes less profitable than honest dealings.
People are too stupid for democracy to work. Just look at what we have now.
Right. If people are so stupid as they're made out to be one wonders wherein the wisdom of granting an exclusive territorial monopoly to a bunch of individuals, over a number of services, lies? Why, in the end they will end up with a leader who thinks he can hear god (Bush) or is made out to be a Messiah (Obama)!
To darkness I condemn you...
Anarchy is the least dangerous of all social systems because it decentralizes power.Thus, if humanity really is just a bunch of ape 2.0s, then abolition of this terribly dangerous monopoly on force that currently exists should be man's first priority.
Jon Irenicus: Right. If people are so stupid as they're made out to be one wonders wherein the wisdom of granting an exclusive territorial monopoly to a bunch of individuals, over a number of services, lies? Why, in the end they will end up with a leader who thinks he can hear god (Bush) or is made out to be a Messiah (Obama)!
My point is that of course anarchy is the best way to for society to function, but it isnt possible with how big and anonymous it has become.
abolition of this terribly dangerous monopoly on force that currently exists should be man's first priority.
nandnor: Jon Irenicus: Right. If people are so stupid as they're made out to be one wonders wherein the wisdom of granting an exclusive territorial monopoly to a bunch of individuals, over a number of services, lies? Why, in the end they will end up with a leader who thinks he can hear god (Bush) or is made out to be a Messiah (Obama)!Because that is the best way to satisfy the peoples need to be assured of the lawmakers being legitimate and honest. Because direct auditing by the clients isnt possible due to society being as big as it is now(above dunbars number per effective law maker as nazgulnarsil said), and it can be effectievely replaced by propaganda and social proof. My point is that of course anarchy is the best way to for society to function, but it isnt possible with how big and anonymous it has become.
nandnor, you're either feeling the pressure to do something to help but look at the big government and see how tiny you are in comparison, or you're really thinking no matter how tiny you are every little bit helps unless you are not for justice. If not for justice then this is a whole other story.
nandnor: and who is this "man"? The elite ARE the government, they who would be capable of bringing it down are also those who most benefit from its existance.
and who is this "man"? The elite ARE the government, they who would be capable of bringing it down are also those who most benefit from its existance.
Not really. Why can only the elite bring it down?
I know you skipped my post in the other thread, but I'm going to repeat myself here. I'm not trying to be a hard-ass. I'm really not. But I'm definitely plain-spoken. Think about what you said for social security and how the government needs to help there (even though social security is only a recent phenomena, meaning, history show options). Think about what you are saying here as well that only the elites can bring this down. In both instances your intellectual exercise, we'll call it that, is abandoning (1) sick and elderly and (2) people's reasoning. With both cases you are doing the reverse of what you are trying to advocate here.
(1) You are not helping the sick and elderly, you are saying they need abandoned to be helped by the government. You are displacing care.
(2) You are saying people can't reason, and so you are saying reason needs abandoned to be helped by the government. You are displacing reason.
Whether intentionally or not that is where your intellectual exercise is saying.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
nandnor:That was my brainstorming of the last couple of months, id like to hear your thoughts on it.
You're too stupid.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Because that is the best way to satisfy the peoples need to be assured of the lawmakers being legitimate and honest. Because direct auditing by the clients isnt possible due to society being as big as it is now(above dunbars number per effective law maker as nazgulnarsil said), and it can be effectievely replaced by propaganda and social proof.
But this is an assertion. So the solution to a (perceived, not actual) "problem" of auditing is to grant a monopoly that cannot be overturned? Why? If people think democracy is the best way to insure transparency (it isn't), then they need to be convinced otherwise...
Centralisation which it fostered. So why not excise it and begin preparing for anarchism?
As Molyneux put it: "If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed existence."
Replace "evil" with "stupid."
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Sage: nandnor:That was my brainstorming of the last couple of months, id like to hear your thoughts on it. As Molyneux put it: "If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed existence." Replace "evil" with "stupid."
Somebody else said that before Molyneux, I'm sure of it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sukrit Sabhlok:People are too stupid for democracy to work. Just look at what we have now.
Excellent, sir. Have one on me:
GilesStratton:Somebody else said that before Molyneux, I'm sure of it.
Are you thinking of Madison's similar quote?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
LeFevre, I believe it was.
nandnor:what happens there, is that people who get any sort of authority or power get inspected personally by the people who they have authority over. that means, that if the person in power(western sheriff, or icelandic court man or what ever) misuses his capabilities, his power will decrease and the
An anarchist society is the ultimate in decentralization. Nobody gets "power" (at least not legitimately). The legal process works with the voluntary cooperation of all involved, at risk of ostracism or being outlawed. Thus, it shouldn't matter how big an anarchist society gets. Just as you can switch from Wal-Mart to K-Mart any day of the week (and then back again, or then to Target), so too could participants in an anarchist system choose from among many options in handling legal matters. There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach such as governments offer.
Ok. This is like saying that making a program without debugging/testing is a good idea. Or navigating without a compass is a good idea.
My point is, government has no effective way of knowing whether law is being provided well.
Schools are labour camps.
its not just the solution, its the inevitable solution. Id like to draw parallels to any 20th century dictator. They too, get extreme power by manipulation, propaganda. And time and time again, people fall for the same tricks, despite having experienced small or no government as a superior solution.
Democracies employ the same propaganda techniques, but the mechanisms of no one specific person being tied to power, and the ideology of people themselves being the ultimate deciders, allow it to continue time after time the leaders have shown the fundamental inabilities to make better decisions than people who give them the mandate.
Its like a deep coma, a sleep people love to be in, people LOVE to give away responsibility and decisions in exchange for security, and a monopoly is the most convincing at achieving that.
Now evolutionarily, people have given away their power just aswell, but the critical difference of directly seeing the implications of any particular leader allow them to be effectively critical. With a huge bureaucracy being present, creating ever more its indespensible services to rationalise its existance, it is ever more difficult to be against its oppressive elements, without also being perceived to be against its usefulness and perceived to be against the wellbeing of citizens, which in turn makes seccession seen as a crime even more.
Are you depressed? Cause that was a depressing post... cheer up!
GilesStratton: Sage: nandnor:That was my brainstorming of the last couple of months, id like to hear your thoughts on it. As Molyneux put it: "If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed existence." Replace "evil" with "stupid." Somebody else said that before Molyneux, I'm sure of it.
Robert Lefevre: "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
And men are both at the same time. So what is the solution?
Let me pose a question; let us take ourselves back to the founding of this country tho, and think as if it wer that time.
Was federalism not an ingenious way (tho not perfect) of decentralizing power? Im asking this in the context of a real world where there has to be government.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap