4 ms·

I think this is one of if not the most important issue in the entire world. We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. Alm

by kauffj 7y ago

I think this is one of if not the most important issue in the entire world. We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. Almost everyone prefers democracies. But many, if not most, living in democracies also take major issue with the way their countries are run. The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest. A framework in which we can experiment with other forms of societal organization, especially one in which minimizes or eliminates externalities, has the potential to produce massive benefits if it discovers better forms of political organization.

shantly 7y ago
> The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest. So Two Cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three. Only Love the Beloved Republic deserves that. - E.M. Forster, "What I Believe", 1939, from a collection bearing the name Two Cheers for Democracy
irishloop 7y ago
That's all well and good but it seems to me all of these "new" forms of organization are essentially to benefit the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else. There is nothing here that will help working-class people, and instead, seems to seek to abandon them.
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  Stable governance and solid protections for property rights would be a massive benefit to the working class in at least half the world.
lisper 7y ago
> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. No, we have a third form: plutocracy.
tener 7y ago
They are after venture backed city states. Funding sovereigns if you have enough money. Government run by corporations will not be pretty. Most likely not a direct dictatorship, but not far.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  Not far? It's fascism without the middleman and a laughable veneer of neoliberal extremism - for legitimacy.
sudoaza 7y ago
There is no democracy, there's a farce of it. Most people don't get to decide on almost anything, except via direct protest. You get to pick "representatives" from 2 or 3 alternatives. These alternatives are heavily decided by electability that is directly related to funding and the few people do the most of it.
sovietcattle 7y ago
"democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest" That's until you realize that representative democracy (rule of majority) is effectively an authoritarian system, which is based on the monopoly of force and the monopoly of currency, and which incentivizes politicians with low time preference to spend more money than what they take (by force) through taxes, therefore indebting and impoverishing the whole population progressively. There's a social organization system that allows for individual freedoms: free markets with no centralized governments. It's not a setup that will be implemented through revolutions, reforms or good will. It's inevitable that we'll get there as the cost of transactions becomes increasingly small (therefore making centralized systems of organization not viable). Refer to the work of Ronald Coase to understand why that is.
- skywhopper 7y ago
  Wow, you are truly delusional. Markets don’t work in the absence of a governing body with a monopoly on force. If you relish the thought of explicitly living in a world run by gangsters, I guess it’s true we are headed that way. But the emergent properties of such a future do not include anything you or I would call “individual freedoms”.
  - dang 7y ago
    Personal attacks aren't ok regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please edit such swipes out of your comments here. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It leads to tedious, repetitive, and usually nasty discussions—see first reply below. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - sovietcattle 7y ago
skywhopper 7y ago
How exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing? What other means of government are they itching to try exactly? And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? How can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system?
- IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
  >>>how exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing Not sure if i capture your subject currently, but you literally do what the article states, for one. >>>>>what other means of government are they itching to try exactly? Why does that matter? If it does to you, should you not research it? The point is that competition will allow the best to replace the garbage we have today. More choice is always better. That is a fact. If you want to know what those choices are, you should inform yourself. >>>>>And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? Its not as hard as you make it out to be. The seasteading project didn't gain traction. Failure. The opposite will be deemed suceess. People vote with their feet. It really is that simple. >>>how can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system? Just because you havent formulated it in your mind, doesnt mean it is not possible. And even if it was not possible, it shouldnt matter. Not everything is black and white. You dont need to eliminate externalities to have something that helps working people live better lives. Eliminating externalities is not the goal
wpietri 7y ago
I'll just point out that plenty of people experiment with alternative forms of societal organization. It happens all the time. The Amish have been doing it in the US for centuries. The Mormons have taken a swing at it too, and their fundamentalist offshoot, the FLDS, is still trying. And there are all sort of other intentional communities out there. As far as I can tell, what most of these experiments show us is things we already know. E.g., the FLDS mainly seems to demonstrate that patriarchy is indeed awful for everybody except the men on top. [1] A lot of the rest seem to show that however people start, it tends toward familiar things, like oligarchy and dictatorship. So unless these folks have taken special care to avoid the problems, I expect that for-profit communities will end up being the city-state version of Away: high-minded language, an always-positive public face, and a lot of abuse and exploitation behind the scenes. [1] See "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a readable take: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
unstrafed 7y ago
> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. Hate to break it to you, but democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. See Kenneth Arrow.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...

by kauffj 7y ago

shantly 7y ago

> The best defense of democracy is Churchill's: democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest. So Two Cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three. Only Love the Beloved Republic deserves that. - E.M. Forster, "What I Believe", 1939, from a collection bearing the name Two Cheers for Democracy

irishloop 7y ago

That's all well and good but it seems to me all of these "new" forms of organization are essentially to benefit the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else. There is nothing here that will help working-class people, and instead, seems to seek to abandon them.

Matticus_Rex 7y ago
Stable governance and solid protections for property rights would be a massive benefit to the working class in at least half the world.

lisper 7y ago

> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. No, we have a third form: plutocracy.

tener 7y ago

They are after venture backed city states. Funding sovereigns if you have enough money. Government run by corporations will not be pretty. Most likely not a direct dictatorship, but not far.

WalterSear 7y ago
Not far? It's fascism without the middleman and a laughable veneer of neoliberal extremism - for legitimacy.

sudoaza 7y ago

There is no democracy, there's a farce of it. Most people don't get to decide on almost anything, except via direct protest. You get to pick "representatives" from 2 or 3 alternatives. These alternatives are heavily decided by electability that is directly related to funding and the few people do the most of it.

sovietcattle 7y ago

"democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the rest" That's until you realize that representative democracy (rule of majority) is effectively an authoritarian system, which is based on the monopoly of force and the monopoly of currency, and which incentivizes politicians with low time preference to spend more money than what they take (by force) through taxes, therefore indebting and impoverishing the whole population progressively. There's a social organization system that allows for individual freedoms: free markets with no centralized governments. It's not a setup that will be implemented through revolutions, reforms or good will. It's inevitable that we'll get there as the cost of transactions becomes increasingly small (therefore making centralized systems of organization not viable). Refer to the work of Ronald Coase to understand why that is.

skywhopper 7y ago
Wow, you are truly delusional. Markets don’t work in the absence of a governing body with a monopoly on force. If you relish the thought of explicitly living in a world run by gangsters, I guess it’s true we are headed that way. But the emergent properties of such a future do not include anything you or I would call “individual freedoms”.
- dang 7y ago
  Personal attacks aren't ok regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please edit such swipes out of your comments here. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It leads to tedious, repetitive, and usually nasty discussions—see first reply below. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sovietcattle 7y ago

skywhopper 7y ago

How exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing? What other means of government are they itching to try exactly? And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? How can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system?

IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
>>>how exactly does seasteading accomplish any such thing Not sure if i capture your subject currently, but you literally do what the article states, for one. >>>>>what other means of government are they itching to try exactly? Why does that matter? If it does to you, should you not research it? The point is that competition will allow the best to replace the garbage we have today. More choice is always better. That is a fact. If you want to know what those choices are, you should inform yourself. >>>>>And how do you judge the success or failure of each experiment? Its not as hard as you make it out to be. The seasteading project didn't gain traction. Failure. The opposite will be deemed suceess. People vote with their feet. It really is that simple. >>>how can you possibly eliminate externalities from any such system? Just because you havent formulated it in your mind, doesnt mean it is not possible. And even if it was not possible, it shouldnt matter. Not everything is black and white. You dont need to eliminate externalities to have something that helps working people live better lives. Eliminating externalities is not the goal

wpietri 7y ago

I'll just point out that plenty of people experiment with alternative forms of societal organization. It happens all the time. The Amish have been doing it in the US for centuries. The Mormons have taken a swing at it too, and their fundamentalist offshoot, the FLDS, is still trying. And there are all sort of other intentional communities out there. As far as I can tell, what most of these experiments show us is things we already know. E.g., the FLDS mainly seems to demonstrate that patriarchy is indeed awful for everybody except the men on top. [1] A lot of the rest seem to show that however people start, it tends toward familiar things, like oligarchy and dictatorship. So unless these folks have taken special care to avoid the problems, I expect that for-profit communities will end up being the city-state version of Away: high-minded language, an always-positive public face, and a lot of abuse and exploitation behind the scenes. [1] See "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a readable take: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1R2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

unstrafed 7y ago

> We currently have two primary forms of government: dictatorship and democracy. Hate to break it to you, but democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. See Kenneth Arrow.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...