3 ms·
That's always the case. Interpreting international relations as spats between gang members (or 8 year-olds) clarifies a lot of things.
by mdpopescu 8y ago
That's always the case. Interpreting international relations as spats between gang members (or 8 year-olds) clarifies a lot of things.
- mikeash 8y agoInternational relations become a lot more comprehensible once you realize that it is the one example of a true, pure anarchy you can find on this planet.
- fermienrico 8y agoI’d take a step deeper and realize that this is glorified tribalism that’s stuck in humans. We evolved into a civilized species but the idea of territorial tribalism is embedded deep into our very psyche.
- mdpopescu 8y agoYeah, but it can be fought. I was never a nationalist, but I didn't realize how ingrained a lot of habits are until I started traveling through Europe. I've once read that "weirdoes start 10 miles from home" - well, it's not that bad but it's still amazing to realize that yes, people in different countries are still people.
- fermienrico 8y agoI think it can be fought on an individualist level but difficult as it goes against the grain with political objectives and nationalist motifs. It’s so deeply engrained - see 1985 UN speech by Jiddu Krishnamurthy. It was a real eye-opener but everyone goes back to normality the next day. Tribalism is very active and impossible to get rid of in my view unless something totally disruptive happens (Alien invasion at which point we will engage in interplanetary tribalism).
- chillacy 8y agoIt’s pretty interesting reading through some of the psychology experiments on ingroup/out group formation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
- Nasrudith 8y agoReminds me of the sarcastic and cynical inversion - referring to gangs as baby governments. Historically that isn't wrong given that strongmen charging protection fees (by consent or coercion) and making an example of any "bandits" harming his income by robbing them or harming their paying subjects. This creates the monopoly on violence and things can progress from there for better or worse. Given an apocalyptic collapse and enough time you might see the Crip Nation eventually become literal.
- leetcrew 8y agopeople really don't like this line of argument on HN. I am curious to find out why.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Nasrudith 8y agoProbably because it often is too couched in ideals that seem for lack of better words childish - they already know that it is backed by a monopoly on violence and power vacuums tend to make any idyllic situations rare and short lived so there is little interesting there even to avowed anarchists. They're aware and usually consider it the lesser of evils unless things go /seriously/ wrong. Better received are nuance and reality bound arguements. Talking about viable schemes to de-hiarch institutions and their limitations is far more interesting. For instance one more viable concept is the "when everybody is the police nobody is" - a situation where everyone has the same policing powers and a tribunal legal system would be very radical but it is interesting conceptually to explore. Specialization still produces premiums so one could discuss in said hypothetical if there was a "security fund" that people pay in and could get paid by consent for operating as a dedicated policeman despite lacking any privledged position legally. Even if one thinks the whole operation would probably be doomed to failure by collapse or hierarchy entrenchment it gives plenty to discuss in facts and opinions.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThe analogy works for many US states and even some city politics as well. There's just less bloodshed than when real street gangs fight. Remember that limo that crashed and killed 20-ish people? The NTSB and the State Police gang are still fighting each other over who's turf it is.