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)!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
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.
nandnor:That was my brainstorming of the last couple of months, id like to hear your thoughts on it.
You're too stupid.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
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."
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
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
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.
Hermes on the day of your death: Im asking this in the context of a real world where there has to be government.
this sentence is innocuous or stupid depending on whether you mean voluntary or involuntary governance.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
As opposed to the Articles of Confederation? No.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Hermes on the day of your death: Was federalism not an ingenious way (tho not perfect) of decentralizing power?
Was federalism not an ingenious way (tho not perfect) of decentralizing power?
A good starting point is to use terms correctly. Federalism is the centralized aspect of government.
I encourage you to retake any intro politics class. Federalism doesnt mean federal governance. It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).
innocuous; 1. Having no adverse effect; harmless. 2. Not likely to offend or provoke to strong emotion; insipid.
I dont understand your use of this term in context. please redefine
and i mean any style of governance
Hermes on the day of your death:Federalism doesnt mean federal governance.
What about the articles of confederation? The federalists wanted a federal government, while the anti-federalists did not.
I encourage you to retake any intro to political history class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation. Leading Federalists tended to be (or be sympathetic to) merchants, traders, craftsmen and manufacturers, and capital-holders. In their opinion, only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises roiling the infant United States, which they identified as:
-----------------
It was a movement pro the centralizing of government powers.
voluntary government is that which is benign and which is the only form of government libertarians can condone in good conscience.
involuntary government is the evil of enslaving ones fellow man. which you seem to be at ease with.
Hermes on the day of your death: I encourage you to retake any intro politics class. Federalism doesnt mean federal governance. It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).
From: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203491/federalism
mode of political organization that unites separate states (emphasis added) or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity...
Federalism: This dictionary defines as:
1• of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation
2 advocacy of a federal system of government.• in Canada, support of confederation in opposition to Quebec separatism.
Federalism is about strengthening the federal aspect of government (and is the opposite action of decentralization)
Also there were the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers. These papers also provide clarity too on what Federalism is.
No it was HOW we got the federal government
Hermes on the day of your death:It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).
This means you are an idiot, federalism is the centralization of power....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Hermes on the day of your death: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.
I believe this video explains in depth what you are trying to convey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHuTs3rSiO0 ("Constitution Lecture 5: Federalism vs. Nationalism" by Shane Killian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
so is this federalism or nationalism then?, or rather did Shane miss something out.......
nirgrahamUK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism so is this federalism or nationalism then?, or rather did Shane miss something out.......
Shane is apparently too stupid for Anarchy, there apparently was an argument for Extreme Statism or Extreme Statism as Shane believes.....
Watch the video.
He talks about how the Nationalists changed their name to Federalists to garner support.
answer the question directly, is federalism a form of centralised government?
I gave you a video explaining the point, and that the name was changed. I did answer it. It was originally a term used to support a federation of states with a weak central government that the states had power over, and was changed to mean a centralized form of government ("federal" government). I never said one was a form of the other (strawman).
Like how the term National Defense today has been opted by Neoconservatives to mean "offensive/pre-emptive war" (or something to that effect), instead of actual defense to make their policy seem more desirable.
malgratloprekindle: I gave you a video explaining the point, and that the name was changed. I did answer it. It was originally a term used to support a federation of states with a weak central government that the states had power over, and was changed to mean a centralized form of government ("federal" government). I never said one was a form of the other (strawman). Like how the term National Defense today has been opted by Neoconservatives to mean "offensive/pre-emptive war" (or something to that effect), instead of actual defense to make their policy seem more desirable.
So when individual states come together to form a federation, say for the purpose of creating a common defense, is not a centralization of political power? When several Soviet states broke off the Soviet Union, was that not a de-centralization of political power?
Hmm, I posted a while ago a theory on why states are ubiquitous nowadays. Basically, I think it's because markets were weaker in past times given the technological state and general knowledge of those eras. That translates into reduced incentives to become an active player on the market (e.g. defense services) and failure to propagate information fast enough (the absence of stock markets and efficient means of communication). The only thing one could have wished besides basic needs and basic entertainment was power over a given population, since everything else was either abundent (e.g. free land) or completely absent and undiscovered yet (e.g. computers, crude oil, cars etc.).
But those times are long gone and I believe a market would provide sufficient equilibrium of power.
confederalsocialist posted a vid about this subject on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIop8XJqpPQ&feature=channel_page
the fact that anarchies, wen they do occur, happen at the edges of civilization like wild west,iceland,ireland, certainly shows the pervasiveness and inevitability of the state once it does take ahold.