Does anarchy really work?
Does anarchy really work? Some philosophical questions...
| Does it | really work? |
|---|---|
 |  |
I honestly think the next big crash/war is coming pretty close.
Time to think folks! Do we really want another round in this game??
Learn the history! The same people are winning round and round.
And with every win they change the rules a little bit more in their favor!
I always in my life had the feeling that there has to be a simple solution to all the human conflict in the world.
After many years of grinding my brain on this quandary i still feel not like having a solution that is "humanly acceptable"...
If we take the philosophical topic of "natural law" for example:
Its a pretty good way to determine or define the moral aspects of human interaction.
Every human has the same rights, so nobody can be in power of someone else if they got no voluntary agreement to do so.
If there is now, a group of people which call themselfs government for example.
They could never had obtained the right to tax or jail you because that right didnt exist for anybody in the first place. So how should it be possible to give away that right that you never had to somebody else by voting for them? Its just isnt, at least from a moral perspective. Its a war, and there are no rules other than greater power.
"Get as offended as you like but you wont do anything about the truth" (Mark Passio)
If you listen to people speak about anarchy and most likely ends up with the same perspective.
"It will be the right of the stronger or smarter one so it will lead to total chaos."
Personaly i think thats bullshit, people do not want conflicts in general and the ones that do will quickly cease,
but i see another much bigger problem.
People need to work together and trade in order to be efficient and they need property to live.
To solve the first problem someone came up with the anarcho capitalism. For me its just a phrase,
but i think its ment to substantiate the fact that there will be trading in anarchy.
So even with assumed trading and peacefull individuals it always seems to be granted that there is such thing as rightfull posessment or property.
You then have the right to defend yourself and your property, work, trade and have a happy life. Or not.
I am really missing the definition of this things. Nearly all things we possibly can posess, are made from material that a somepoint in history had no owner.
Same thing with land. You may have bought it from somebody else, but a few decades back someone just took it an build a fence around.
This rule even applies to the things that we use as currency and for the new crypto currencys, they apply to the necessary infrastructure.
And at this point it gets complicated...
How could we possibly transform to an anarchic society if the whole world is already sold?
And even if we could remove all borders and property claims at one strike...
How to split them up again? There are more or less wanted places on earth for different reasons.
In order to leave this problem to the market we would need a uniform valuation method which then
again would lead to skyrocketing values on some places and probably violence. Again.
The problem becomes even bigger if we think about the growing population. New people every day... so what can they claim their own?
Any solutions? Anyone?
The collective intelligence of a group of people is inversely proportional to it's size.
Big groups kill more people than small ones do.
During the twentieth century governments killed a third of a billion people.
Something to think about.
A bit misleading right? For instance if, without government, every individual killed only 10 people that would be 70 billion.
Hehe, the thing here is that the most people dont randomly shoot others...
I dont want to be shot so i dont shoot if i dont have to. I´m pretty shure most people are like this.
So after the first few violent idots where shot, it would be pretty peacefull I assume.
But there are problems, which brings us to the top of the page... see what I did here xD
That's a pretty big assumption to base 70 billion peoples' lives on...
there are less than seven billion people alive
your arguement is invalid.
Yeah, thats the thing about not knowing something.
But i´m shure you will enlighten us about the true circumstances.
Youre right, of course it would be less violent than today. At least in the long Term.
But i think people would still keep fighting over resources or just the view to the lake.
My Question is more like "is there a way to get real peace?"
A way to enable humans to solve this problems with intelligence?
Dunbar's number suggests that any group larger than about one hundred and fifty goes insane. At the very least they begin to exhibit behavior that would be classified as insane by a rational person. Emphiracl research, called rat utopia, by some supports this concept. The Behavioral Sinks thus exhibited correlate closely with observed behavior in cities.
Thank you, never heard of Dunbar´s number... Things like this i´m looking for.
It makes sense to me that a group only can be stable if everyone knows everyone.
Then even the currency system has a potetial solution. a "fei lun" like system.
Its a kind of biological blockchain :)
Know we just need a way to interact with other groups without "clanwars" an were done.
easy peasy xD
Prove it.
Whats to prove there? Its intrinsic logic...
What else other than a human which you are yourself tries to tax or jail you?
So do you have the right to do this things to others?
I´m not saying that you cannot do it, but its immoral.
If you want the extendet answer:
Immoral? Prove it.
Not my game... define morality.