5 ms·

One person can hit another person over the head without any centralized authority being involved. So I don't think your claim is correct at all. Assuming if som

One person can hit another person over the head without any centralized authority being involved. So I don't think your claim is correct at all. Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with a stick.

watwut 5y ago
>Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with a stick. If this is possible, then it is equally possible to just hit anyone you please with stick so that they are forced to do what you want. Which means, the most violent eager person gets to rule. Which is what people who prefer court system don't want.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  If you just hit people with sticks, they are bound to hit back. I don't understand your example.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I know several people that it would be VERY unwise for almost anyone to attempt to hit them with sticks. Do they get to do larceny as much as they want in this system?
    - virgildotcodes 5y ago
      No, because in this perfectly rational world a bunch of weaker humans would inevitably band together to overcome the stronger stick man. This is exactly how things would go, which is why in human history warlords have never been a thing, and violent, oppressive men have never built empires.
      - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
        Except there are still warlords, and drug cartels. And police beating black fellows more often than the average. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/africas-top-10-dictators-and-warlords-body-count-included/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/africas-top-10-dictator... You need commanders for war. Weaker humans usually sit through decimation until the guards come for them. Then they squeal for help. It is also rational. Consider that if you stand agaisnt the stronger enemy, the enemy might come back later with reinforcements and kill you. Edit: I remembered what the Bible says happened to jews. The egyptians killed the jew children to keep the population in check, before exodus. And shortly after Jesus was born, Herod probably did the same.
      - chii 5y ago
        > inevitably band together to overcome the stronger stick man. and produce the court-based system we see today, with enforcement of the stick centralized to an authority that everyone agreed to (implicitly).
crdrost 5y ago
Right but that gets into scaling problems and arguments... for a hundred people sticks might work, for a thousand it gets dicey, by 10,000 things start to break down as factionalism spontaneously emerges: within our tribe we handle things via social cohesion and weak displays of symbolic force, outside our tribe we handle things via stronger displays of retribution Point is that "hit with a stick" happens to also centralize power, albeit dynamically, at scale. If you're really looking for a counterexample to centralized institutions, a better metaphor is probably "ecosystem." No centralized authority tells the lions to be kings and queens of the savannah, their status as apex predators comes dynamically from some transform {biosphere} -> {biosphere} finding a natural fixed point which has stability simply from the abstract mathematics of fixed points. A similar dynamic stability exists in the US in the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats, no central authority says that there have to be only two parties, but rather the rules of the game state "we divide everything into districts and every race is run as winner-take-all" which naturally induces this 50/50 two-party split that will destroy the country eventually
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I guess you could argue the set of laws is the central authority that produces a two-party system, even though it may not have been intentional. Presumably you could adjust the laws so that other constellations would emerge. Also why do people have to live in societies of millions of individuals? Perhaps smaller units would be better. To some degree that is already what happens, as for example villages can decide some things for themselves. The question is just who should get to decide what.
pavel_lishin 5y ago
> Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with a stick. But that's not a society any of us want to live in.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I didn't say you should run society like that. I only provided an example to prove that centralized control is not necessary to enforce rules. Typically people form groups that enforce certain rules. You can have bigger and smaller groups. Some big countries are very centralized, others less so - I think federalization in the US serves to counteract centralization? Ideally people have some degree of freedom to switch to groups whose rules align with their own preferences. It is not an all or nothing, there can be degrees of centralization and decentralization. Of course we can not escape the laws of nature in the end.
  - preseinger 5y ago
    Centralized authority is definitely necessary to enforce rules in any practical sense.

watwut 5y ago

>Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with a stick. If this is possible, then it is equally possible to just hit anyone you please with stick so that they are forced to do what you want. Which means, the most violent eager person gets to rule. Which is what people who prefer court system don't want.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
If you just hit people with sticks, they are bound to hit back. I don't understand your example.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I know several people that it would be VERY unwise for almost anyone to attempt to hit them with sticks. Do they get to do larceny as much as they want in this system?
  - virgildotcodes 5y ago
    No, because in this perfectly rational world a bunch of weaker humans would inevitably band together to overcome the stronger stick man. This is exactly how things would go, which is why in human history warlords have never been a thing, and violent, oppressive men have never built empires.
    - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
      Except there are still warlords, and drug cartels. And police beating black fellows more often than the average. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/africas-top-10-dictators-and-warlords-body-count-included/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/africas-top-10-dictator... You need commanders for war. Weaker humans usually sit through decimation until the guards come for them. Then they squeal for help. It is also rational. Consider that if you stand agaisnt the stronger enemy, the enemy might come back later with reinforcements and kill you. Edit: I remembered what the Bible says happened to jews. The egyptians killed the jew children to keep the population in check, before exodus. And shortly after Jesus was born, Herod probably did the same.
    - chii 5y ago
      > inevitably band together to overcome the stronger stick man. and produce the court-based system we see today, with enforcement of the stick centralized to an authority that everyone agreed to (implicitly).

crdrost 5y ago

Right but that gets into scaling problems and arguments... for a hundred people sticks might work, for a thousand it gets dicey, by 10,000 things start to break down as factionalism spontaneously emerges: within our tribe we handle things via social cohesion and weak displays of symbolic force, outside our tribe we handle things via stronger displays of retribution Point is that "hit with a stick" happens to also centralize power, albeit dynamically, at scale. If you're really looking for a counterexample to centralized institutions, a better metaphor is probably "ecosystem." No centralized authority tells the lions to be kings and queens of the savannah, their status as apex predators comes dynamically from some transform {biosphere} -> {biosphere} finding a natural fixed point which has stability simply from the abstract mathematics of fixed points. A similar dynamic stability exists in the US in the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats, no central authority says that there have to be only two parties, but rather the rules of the game state "we divide everything into districts and every race is run as winner-take-all" which naturally induces this 50/50 two-party split that will destroy the country eventually

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I guess you could argue the set of laws is the central authority that produces a two-party system, even though it may not have been intentional. Presumably you could adjust the laws so that other constellations would emerge. Also why do people have to live in societies of millions of individuals? Perhaps smaller units would be better. To some degree that is already what happens, as for example villages can decide some things for themselves. The question is just who should get to decide what.

pavel_lishin 5y ago

> Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with a stick. But that's not a society any of us want to live in.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I didn't say you should run society like that. I only provided an example to prove that centralized control is not necessary to enforce rules. Typically people form groups that enforce certain rules. You can have bigger and smaller groups. Some big countries are very centralized, others less so - I think federalization in the US serves to counteract centralization? Ideally people have some degree of freedom to switch to groups whose rules align with their own preferences. It is not an all or nothing, there can be degrees of centralization and decentralization. Of course we can not escape the laws of nature in the end.
- preseinger 5y ago
  Centralized authority is definitely necessary to enforce rules in any practical sense.