3 ms·

Every system ends up needing: - trust - rules - enforcement I'm not even surprised such a system exists, because full anarchy where no one trusts anyone is

Every system ends up needing: - trust - rules - enforcement I'm not even surprised such a system exists, because full anarchy where no one trusts anyone is not good even in theory.

Miner49er 5y ago
> full anarchy I know what you mean, but it's unfortunate that anarchism is sometimes a synonym for "no rules" when it doesn't mean that at all. I think this system is actually very anarchist.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  Right. I used to think this as well. In its most basic form, it means no ruler. I view anarchism as the ultimate counter to authoritarianism. The older I get, the more it becomes apparent to me that all of our world governments are authoritarian to a degree, including supposed democratic ones, and there seems to be this arbitrary threshold of "ok now we call this regime authoritarian". But every government rules through multiple forms of coercion. Some are more authoritarian than others, but nonetheless, authoritarian.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    My personal theory is that it's straight up impossible to have a non-authoritarian government involving more than Dunbar's number of people (counting both the governors and the governed). For larger numbers, the best you can do is a multi-level federated approach where the governing assemblies on each level have no more than that number of delegates from the level below.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      Then you're likely run into a problem with communication. You can see in basically any large company: communication gets lost, misinterpreted, you end up depending on many other entities to do anything etc.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
This is a common misconception. Anarchy doesn't stand for "without rules", it stands for "without ruler". The idea behind is to get rid of centralised, corruptible bottlenecks and decentralise decision and rule making. There are different models and theories on how that could work (The Machinery of Freedom gets quoted often) and zero interest from any politician to push for it; the appeal of getting into politics is having power - and a model where politicians should give away all of it is obviously not very popular with career politicians.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > The idea behind is to get rid of centralised, corruptible bottlenecks and decentralise decision and rule making. And how do you "decentralise" that? There's no decision making and rules without enforcement. So, in a "decentralised rule making" the one with the biggest muscles ends up making the rules. > the appeal of getting into politics is having power Yes. And so, in a "decentralised world" you will join the group with the most power. Until, well, you reinvent all the existing structures anyway.

Every system ends up needing: - trust - rules - enforcement I'm not even surprised such a system exists, because full anarchy where no one trusts anyone is not good even in theory.

Miner49er 5y ago

> full anarchy I know what you mean, but it's unfortunate that anarchism is sometimes a synonym for "no rules" when it doesn't mean that at all. I think this system is actually very anarchist.

dimitrios1 5y ago
Right. I used to think this as well. In its most basic form, it means no ruler. I view anarchism as the ultimate counter to authoritarianism. The older I get, the more it becomes apparent to me that all of our world governments are authoritarian to a degree, including supposed democratic ones, and there seems to be this arbitrary threshold of "ok now we call this regime authoritarian". But every government rules through multiple forms of coercion. Some are more authoritarian than others, but nonetheless, authoritarian.
- int_19h 5y ago
  My personal theory is that it's straight up impossible to have a non-authoritarian government involving more than Dunbar's number of people (counting both the governors and the governed). For larger numbers, the best you can do is a multi-level federated approach where the governing assemblies on each level have no more than that number of delegates from the level below.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    Then you're likely run into a problem with communication. You can see in basically any large company: communication gets lost, misinterpreted, you end up depending on many other entities to do anything etc.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

This is a common misconception. Anarchy doesn't stand for "without rules", it stands for "without ruler". The idea behind is to get rid of centralised, corruptible bottlenecks and decentralise decision and rule making. There are different models and theories on how that could work (The Machinery of Freedom gets quoted often) and zero interest from any politician to push for it; the appeal of getting into politics is having power - and a model where politicians should give away all of it is obviously not very popular with career politicians.

dmitriid 5y ago
> The idea behind is to get rid of centralised, corruptible bottlenecks and decentralise decision and rule making. And how do you "decentralise" that? There's no decision making and rules without enforcement. So, in a "decentralised rule making" the one with the biggest muscles ends up making the rules. > the appeal of getting into politics is having power Yes. And so, in a "decentralised world" you will join the group with the most power. Until, well, you reinvent all the existing structures anyway.