4 ms·

Right, but when I say 'base state' I'm referring to the big-bang of humanity. Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'ba

Right, but when I say 'base state' I'm referring to the big-bang of humanity. Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. That is to say, Western imperialist powers weren't extraterrestrials that came from other worlds to spread capitalism (although it may have seemed that way to the colonized). I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that the anarchist experiment has been run (and, as you say, had been the norm for plenty of time), yet here we are. And if we were to run the experiment again, after a sufficient amount of time, I think here we'd be again. Though, I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state.

pdonis 8y ago
> Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. They were all humans, yes, and they all evolved ultimately from hunter-gatherers, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the "world powers" were societies that had had governments for centuries, if not millennia, and were only able to be imperialists because they could use the coercive power of those governments to appropriate the resources they needed to be imperialists. > the anarchist experiment has been run Starting with hunter-gatherer humans, who then invented agriculture, formed governments to address the issues that arose, and had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. If we were to run the experiment again, it would be with humans who now have 10,000 years of experience with all of the problems that governments create. That experience puts us in a very different position from the humans who first formed governments. So the experiment would have very different initial conditions, which could produce different results. > I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state. By providing alternate means of regulating social cooperation that do not require coercion. The Internet is, of course, the outstanding example of this; it facilitates all kinds of cooperation among large numbers of people that would have been unthinkable before it existed. Automation is another example: much of the drudge work of society that had to be done by humans for most of human history can now be done by machines. That reduces the amount of human labor that is needed to provide necessities for everyone, and therefore improves the average bargaining position of people when they engage in voluntary cooperation and trade to obtain the things they need.
- byproxy 8y ago
  So, kinda going back to what I initially said, an ideal anarchistic state would require the hindsight of government gone awry, which means that enforcing government at some point would be a necessary step towards ideal anarchy? I wonder how long the lessons of past mistakes would stick before they start being forgotten and start to be made once more. Maybe something like Roberto Unger's "religion of the future" (which also relies on automation to enable 'deep freedom') would have to spring up to soft-enforce a global set of values that would quell the rise of any oppressive government thinkers. Not sure, just spitballing.

pdonis 8y ago

> Those world powers that were able to impose their will evolved out of the same 'base state' as those who had that will imposed upon them. They were all humans, yes, and they all evolved ultimately from hunter-gatherers, yes. That doesn't change the fact that the "world powers" were societies that had had governments for centuries, if not millennia, and were only able to be imperialists because they could use the coercive power of those governments to appropriate the resources they needed to be imperialists. > the anarchist experiment has been run Starting with hunter-gatherer humans, who then invented agriculture, formed governments to address the issues that arose, and had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. If we were to run the experiment again, it would be with humans who now have 10,000 years of experience with all of the problems that governments create. That experience puts us in a very different position from the humans who first formed governments. So the experiment would have very different initial conditions, which could produce different results. > I'm curious as to how you think advancing technology would navigate around the issues of humans generally coalescing into a government-ruled state. By providing alternate means of regulating social cooperation that do not require coercion. The Internet is, of course, the outstanding example of this; it facilitates all kinds of cooperation among large numbers of people that would have been unthinkable before it existed. Automation is another example: much of the drudge work of society that had to be done by humans for most of human history can now be done by machines. That reduces the amount of human labor that is needed to provide necessities for everyone, and therefore improves the average bargaining position of people when they engage in voluntary cooperation and trade to obtain the things they need.

byproxy 8y ago
So, kinda going back to what I initially said, an ideal anarchistic state would require the hindsight of government gone awry, which means that enforcing government at some point would be a necessary step towards ideal anarchy? I wonder how long the lessons of past mistakes would stick before they start being forgotten and start to be made once more. Maybe something like Roberto Unger's "religion of the future" (which also relies on automation to enable 'deep freedom') would have to spring up to soft-enforce a global set of values that would quell the rise of any oppressive government thinkers. Not sure, just spitballing.