3 ms·

> “if there will be informal cliques of power arising anyway, we may as well formalise and legitimise their power“ I’m not saying we should legitimize any unju

> “if there will be informal cliques of power arising anyway, we may as well formalise and legitimise their power“ I’m not saying we should legitimize any unjust system, I’m saying we should fly the plane while we fix it instead of crashing it into the ground, melting it down and recasting it into new parts. I think it’s more likely we get to better forms of organization by moving forwards, not backwards. > That's not a universally accepted line of reasoning. Sounds like argumentum ad populum mixed in with a little “many people are saying…” > It might be the case that flexible orders of informal power results in better outcomes than strictly defined hierarchies of formal power. Sure maybe, but it’s on you to elaborate how that could happen, or provide examples. > strictly defined hierarchies of formal power My experience dealing with many different government agencies, from border patrol and customs to the IRS and DMV have shown me that government is anything but rigid and well defined; the insidiousness of bureaucracy lies in its fluidity, due to the fact that you’re at the whim of whatever agent stands before you, with all their human imperfections. They had a bad day? They’re off their game? You just might get the shaft. Still, I think that’s a better place to start building from than square one.

kqr 4y ago
> I think it’s more likely we get to better forms of organization by moving forwards, not backwards. Now you're implying that anarchism, based on more egalitarian principles than what we have now, is "moving backwards"? Or did I misunderstand this? > Sure maybe, but it’s on you to elaborate how that could happen, or provide examples. I feel like research into system safety and performance -- some of it has disseminated into modern management training -- emphasises a low power gradient and a Westrum generative culture. In other words, what we know indicates we should move at least a little bit away from feudalism and toward anarchism. Even the traditionally strictly hierarchical armed forces are moving toward decentralised control, "commander's intent", initiative on the ground, etc. > My experience dealing with many different government agencies... This is very observant! I think it would be better to recognise this explicitly and start from the assumption that power is flexible and informal, rather than keep trying to pretend it's something else.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  > Now you're implying that anarchism, based on more egalitarian principles than what we have now, is "moving backwards"? Or did I misunderstand this? I think it is not a given that anarchism is more egalitarian, especially if you think, like I do, that it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it. Pure egalitarianism means reverting to the lowest possible common denominator. Many people will not accept that. When I say forwards and backwards, I mean getting closer to understanding and defining the power dynamics intrinsic to populations of humans. I think code of law is an output of that pursuit, much like software code is there output of the process of defining whatever system it is modeling. I have to admit that you’ve brought me to the limit of my knowledge with Westrum, haven’t heard of that before. I’ll have to read some things and chew on that a bit. Low power gradient sounds nice, but I’ll say two things about it OTTOMH: 1) that is not anarchy, and 2) even a very shallow gradient in a world of 7 billion still results in a very wide base of people at the lowest rungs and a very high rung for the upper crust. Ie it can still lead to large inequalities given a sufficiently large society. I’m not saying that is fair or right, I’m just saying I’m not seeing convincing alternatives.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    > it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it I’ve always thought the opposite is true. A set of rules is bound to be gamed. More rules create more opportunities to exploit (regulation only benefits leechers). When rules are global, profit of exploitation is greater. Therefore, there are more exploiters and exploits. In anarchy, the extent to which a set of rules apply is limited. Therefore, there is less profit from exploitation, and in turn, there are less exploiters.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  > low power gradient What does this mean?
  - kqr 4y ago
    It means many things, but perhaps one way to put it is that ideas live on their own merit, rather than the rank of the person who proposed them. You also notice it other ways: information (especially bad news) gets distorted as it tries to travel up a steep power gradient. In a steep power gradient, blame gets assigned downward and credit is claimed upward. Under a low power gradient, people share talk time in meetings more equally.

kqr 4y ago

> I think it’s more likely we get to better forms of organization by moving forwards, not backwards. Now you're implying that anarchism, based on more egalitarian principles than what we have now, is "moving backwards"? Or did I misunderstand this? > Sure maybe, but it’s on you to elaborate how that could happen, or provide examples. I feel like research into system safety and performance -- some of it has disseminated into modern management training -- emphasises a low power gradient and a Westrum generative culture. In other words, what we know indicates we should move at least a little bit away from feudalism and toward anarchism. Even the traditionally strictly hierarchical armed forces are moving toward decentralised control, "commander's intent", initiative on the ground, etc. > My experience dealing with many different government agencies... This is very observant! I think it would be better to recognise this explicitly and start from the assumption that power is flexible and informal, rather than keep trying to pretend it's something else.

sixstringtheory 4y ago
> Now you're implying that anarchism, based on more egalitarian principles than what we have now, is "moving backwards"? Or did I misunderstand this? I think it is not a given that anarchism is more egalitarian, especially if you think, like I do, that it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it. Pure egalitarianism means reverting to the lowest possible common denominator. Many people will not accept that. When I say forwards and backwards, I mean getting closer to understanding and defining the power dynamics intrinsic to populations of humans. I think code of law is an output of that pursuit, much like software code is there output of the process of defining whatever system it is modeling. I have to admit that you’ve brought me to the limit of my knowledge with Westrum, haven’t heard of that before. I’ll have to read some things and chew on that a bit. Low power gradient sounds nice, but I’ll say two things about it OTTOMH: 1) that is not anarchy, and 2) even a very shallow gradient in a world of 7 billion still results in a very wide base of people at the lowest rungs and a very high rung for the upper crust. Ie it can still lead to large inequalities given a sufficiently large society. I’m not saying that is fair or right, I’m just saying I’m not seeing convincing alternatives.
- laserlight 4y ago
  > it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it I’ve always thought the opposite is true. A set of rules is bound to be gamed. More rules create more opportunities to exploit (regulation only benefits leechers). When rules are global, profit of exploitation is greater. Therefore, there are more exploiters and exploits. In anarchy, the extent to which a set of rules apply is limited. Therefore, there is less profit from exploitation, and in turn, there are less exploiters.
diordiderot 4y ago
> low power gradient What does this mean?
- kqr 4y ago
  It means many things, but perhaps one way to put it is that ideas live on their own merit, rather than the rank of the person who proposed them. You also notice it other ways: information (especially bad news) gets distorted as it tries to travel up a steep power gradient. In a steep power gradient, blame gets assigned downward and credit is claimed upward. Under a low power gradient, people share talk time in meetings more equally.