3 ms·
You're comparing top-down structures with each other. We all live in top-down structures. Even Switzerland is a representational democracy (or a bunch of repre
by hnbad 2y ago
You're comparing top-down structures with each other.
We all live in top-down structures. Even Switzerland is a representational democracy (or a bunch of representational democracies in a trenchcoat) at its core. States are extremely allergic against relinquishing power so they usually only allow for federations in constrained, often bureaucratic forms: clubs, corporations, interest groups, etc, all of which often end up being top-down structures themselves, either through mimicry (gotta have your by-laws) or legal compliance (someone has to foot the bill).
The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds. We also know that close-knit groups of humans are very stable and often engage in acts of altruism, even within groups beyond this scale (think neighborhoods, villages) as long as they follow a web of trust they can intuitively comprehend.
Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust without having to engage in violence and war. This is the brotherhood of man. The only problem with this kind of scaling is that it doesn't allow for the concentration of power and wealth in individuals because it is ultimately a network of peers rather than a hierarchy of domination.
I think Democratic Confederalism is an interesting approach to a horizontal model that satisfies our modern need for a certain level of formality and structure while still building on our evolutionary strengths.
Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people. Our intellect may allow us to defeat any natural predator but we come into this world naked, defenseless and entirely dependent on the kindness of others. Helping other humans is literally in our DNA, not just when it comes to child-rearing.
- smitty1e 2y ago> The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds. This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number > Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust For some values of "settle". > Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people. Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour The real point I'm after here is Dunbar's Number. The scope of concern tapers radically outside of that clan unit. We attempt to have representative systems and public institutions to factor out the individual quirks (and mortality) and provide continuity. But Dunbar's Number works negatively within these public institutions to breed corruption. This is why, if I were to wax prescriptive, the least-worst approach is to Term Limit All The Things. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, merits frequent turning. Keep the systems simple, and turn politics into shift work, say I. We have copious population to draw from; don't tell me only this selected crop of nitwits can do the job.