10 ms·

"You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever." Sigh. Another armchair economist trying to extrapolate history. Y

"You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever." Sigh. Another armchair economist trying to extrapolate history. You are re-defining all societies in terms of our modern idea of government to push some libertarian view. Yes, you are correct, societies had money before there was a modern elected government with 3 branches. That doesn't mean there weren't rules, there weren't concepts like enforcement of contracts, like debt and how to 'sue' over recovering debt'. You can't go back in history to when we were tribal, say 'look we didn't need a government', and then extrapolate that to todays world and promote anarchy. Money before 'central government'? Central to what? My tribe? You are just re-defining what a government is. You are going back to when we were exchanging shiny bits of shell. Something for your birthday https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290 https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290

_0ffh 3y ago
You don't need a coercive territorial monopolist with ultimate decision-making power over all conflicts within its territory to have rules. And a lack of rules is called anomy, not anarchy.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think 'anomy' is implying that we would trust social norms, or that people would behave as expected by force of society's norms. You would behave so others would continue to do business with you. I think we've seen a lot in recent years how this doesn't work when people are free to break away from social norms. Other point, I think this is missing that in large global economies, we have both very little recourse on our own without laws. If we trust purely market forces (if you sell me junk I just wont buy from you), then bad-actors can just move on to next mark, or change names. We have started making purchases in anonymously online from other anonymous sellers. There is no longer any social norms to prevent cheating. really good illustration of trust. which is needed for market pressures you describe, but don't scale well. hence needing laws to track down bad-actors. https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ Argument for central Authority to enforce common laws : Skip to section 3. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

_0ffh 3y ago

You don't need a coercive territorial monopolist with ultimate decision-making power over all conflicts within its territory to have rules. And a lack of rules is called anomy, not anarchy.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I think 'anomy' is implying that we would trust social norms, or that people would behave as expected by force of society's norms. You would behave so others would continue to do business with you. I think we've seen a lot in recent years how this doesn't work when people are free to break away from social norms. Other point, I think this is missing that in large global economies, we have both very little recourse on our own without laws. If we trust purely market forces (if you sell me junk I just wont buy from you), then bad-actors can just move on to next mark, or change names. We have started making purchases in anonymously online from other anonymous sellers. There is no longer any social norms to prevent cheating. really good illustration of trust. which is needed for market pressures you describe, but don't scale well. hence needing laws to track down bad-actors. https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ Argument for central Authority to enforce common laws : Skip to section 3. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/