5 ms·

> And the slaves love to get food and shelter for their work. We’re skirting awfully close to Godwin’s law here aren’t we? One of the deepest insights I found

> And the slaves love to get food and shelter for their work. We’re skirting awfully close to Godwin’s law here aren’t we? One of the deepest insights I found in Caste by Isabel Wilkerson was that most people, when put in the position, would capitalize on the opportunity to subjugate their fellow humans. I’m not saying I want to do that, I’m just saying that is reality as I have seen it play out. > Or do you just want to throw tour hands in the air Quite the opposite, see my reply to your sibling, I think we can do get farther by working in the systems we’ve evolved vs throwing them all away. I’m not sure anarchism is a good approach to avoiding path dependency in the search for an optimal government, which may not even be possible –as you said, no system is an end itself. We’re going to keep discovering new problems to solve, and I think we’d be better equipped with advanced forms of government. That doesn’t mean they can’t be made simpler or be organized better than they are today.

kqr 4y ago
> One of the deepest insights I found in Caste by Isabel Wilkerson was that most people, when put in the position, would capitalize on the opportunity to subjugate their fellow humans. I’m not saying I want to do that, I’m just saying that is reality as I have seen it play out. Isn't this basically because they feel forced to, since they're subjugated to someone else?
- diordiderot 4y ago
  "If I don't do it someone else will" "May as well get mine"
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  I don’t think you could say that about everyone. I’ve known unreasonably sociopathic people. And even then, the buck stops somewhere. To whom is the king of the hill beholden?
colinsane 4y ago
> One of the deepest insights I found in Caste by Isabel Wilkerson was that most people, when put in the position, would capitalize on the opportunity to subjugate their fellow humans. that’s the crux of it though isn’t it? democrats (lowercase d) don’t trust any individual to wield direct power over another so they limit their own power and transfer it to the state and then distribute control over the state. anarchists don’t trust others to wield power over them so they seek to remove themselves from obligatory power relations altogether. i’m not convinced there isn’t a non-destructive path from democracy to anarchy. start where we are today, and increasingly make more systems “opt in”. “you want the power to buy/sell things without FDA approval? fine, but you’ll have to settle disputes outside of our court system.” and keep doing that until you’ve granted the diehard anarchist the legal freedom to legitimately opt out of all prior power relations, and start his village in the woods, no police, no taxes, no restrictions on exchange. actually i’m a little fuzzy on what proportion of anarchists would be satisfied by this, or if it would more likely be rejected as being ancap or libertarian.
- known 4y ago

kqr 4y ago

> One of the deepest insights I found in Caste by Isabel Wilkerson was that most people, when put in the position, would capitalize on the opportunity to subjugate their fellow humans. I’m not saying I want to do that, I’m just saying that is reality as I have seen it play out. Isn't this basically because they feel forced to, since they're subjugated to someone else?

diordiderot 4y ago
"If I don't do it someone else will" "May as well get mine"
sixstringtheory 4y ago
I don’t think you could say that about everyone. I’ve known unreasonably sociopathic people. And even then, the buck stops somewhere. To whom is the king of the hill beholden?

colinsane 4y ago

> One of the deepest insights I found in Caste by Isabel Wilkerson was that most people, when put in the position, would capitalize on the opportunity to subjugate their fellow humans. that’s the crux of it though isn’t it? democrats (lowercase d) don’t trust any individual to wield direct power over another so they limit their own power and transfer it to the state and then distribute control over the state. anarchists don’t trust others to wield power over them so they seek to remove themselves from obligatory power relations altogether. i’m not convinced there isn’t a non-destructive path from democracy to anarchy. start where we are today, and increasingly make more systems “opt in”. “you want the power to buy/sell things without FDA approval? fine, but you’ll have to settle disputes outside of our court system.” and keep doing that until you’ve granted the diehard anarchist the legal freedom to legitimately opt out of all prior power relations, and start his village in the woods, no police, no taxes, no restrictions on exchange. actually i’m a little fuzzy on what proportion of anarchists would be satisfied by this, or if it would more likely be rejected as being ancap or libertarian.

known 4y ago