Conversation

Notices

1. Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Monday, 29-Apr-2024 11:25:34 JST Matt Hamilton

   • ≠

   @amerika I don't claim people or organizations are infallible, and once again the same argument could be made against Monarchy, which under the same condition would likely produce much more brutal and violent result.

   I agree with you that the State's removal of freedom of association (forced diversification) has led to undesirable outcomes.

   But I remain unconvinced that Monarchy is superior to abolition of the State.

   • † top dog :pedomustdie: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Monday, 29-Apr-2024 11:25:33 JST † top dog :pedomustdie:

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @eriner @amerika I am sympathetic mostly to freedom but i do see some value in monarchy. Again we all face the problem of people who want to be leader which inevitable lead to government. What this mostly means no system will last as long or last to long in some cases and i don't think there is a solution.
   • † top dog :pedomustdie: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 00:53:18 JST † top dog :pedomustdie:

     in reply to

     • ≠
     @amerika @eriner Key word i said is there is going to be a leader. People who want to control others and the state is just one massive way to do it.
   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 00:53:19 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @dcc @eriner
     
     My red pill was the Cro-Mags: "anarchy's a mess."
     
     There are going to be leaders.
     
     Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 00:57:33 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     How does that comport with what you said, then?

     > There are going to be leaders.

     > Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.

     The second part is entirely obviated by the first.

     † top dog :pedomustdie: likes this.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 00:57:34 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     The existence of Leaders does not demand existence of a State.

     Do you reject the notion that corporation owners are leaders?

   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 00:57:34 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     Leaders are anyone who leads. These can be state, aristocratic, or corporate if you believe something like Moldbug's "patchwork" can work.
   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:48:59 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠
     I agree. Anarchy might work in a little cult community, or to replace an HOA in a gated community ... but even then you're talking about a lot of people with resources and vested interest.
     
     The computers (or phones) we're typing on right now, and the networking infrastructure that makes global community possible, does requite a State (multiple states). You cannot have technology at the scale we have without institution some type of governance. You can't have interoperability without standards. Something as simple as the postal system, or as complex as Interstates/Autobahns, still requires a functioning State to work.
     
     Anarchy doesn't scale.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:00 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     Then I don't understand the fundamental argument.

     I thought you were arguing against anarchy and in favor of monarchy because "anarchy's a mess" and "Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.", with the conversation leading one to conclude that the reason for this is due to a lack of leader(ship).

     But now we've come full circle and agree that leaders need not be of the State.

     So it's not an argument against Anarchy?

   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:00 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     Anarchy does not work; voluntarism does not work.
     
     Let us try there.
     
     I dislike the State as well.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:01 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     > Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.

     You keep saying stuff about a "leader" with the implication that it HAS to be one of the State.

     But I've already addressed the fact that this is NOT a requirement: https://noauthority.social/@eriner/112355332258753840

     Your only complaint, from what I can tell, is "consent is slow and inconvenient"

     Sorry, but that's where you lose me.

   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:01 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     No, aristocrats are leaders outside of the State.
     
     If a corporation owns an island, it can have leaders too.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:02 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     If high ground water and persistent flooding is impacting my property and my neighbors property, we all have a vested interest in fixing the problem.

     Maybe fixing it is only worth $400 to one neighbor, $800 to another, and $1200 to me. (yes, wouldn't be using dollars but humor me).

     Either we can work with the resources we have, can't do it, or need a different solution.

     I'd rather work it out with my neighbors than have the State steal from me and never fix it anyway.

   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:02 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     False dichotomy here as well as missing the big point.
     
     Having reservoirs and other organized methods of dealing with a flood are imporant, as is planning for a flood when the storm is on the horizon.
     
     Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.
   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:03 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     The second is why the first is true. One of the reasons, at least.
     
     Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.
     
     Then the ships appear on the horizon.
     
     Or, a famine hits. Or there is a storm coming.
   • Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:03 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠

     @amerika @dcc

     Anarchy does not imply no leadership, is my point which seems to have been lost.

     Suggesting that anarchy can't work because we *have* to have a criminal enterprise to enslave people in order to run public works projects from on high is preposterous, demonstrably so (business).

     Anarchy != no leaders.

     Anarchy != everyone unwilling to pool efforts for necessary works

     Consent is literally the only difference.

   • ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:03 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     @eriner @dcc
     
     In other words, a committee.
     
     Which has to debate, slowly.
     
     "Consent" is the fiction of democracy.
     
     You want to repeat that experiment?
   • † top dog :pedomustdie: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 01:49:48 JST † top dog :pedomustdie:

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • ≠
     @djsumdog @amerika @eriner >need the state
     Again its not need its rather it will exist because of people want to control others.
   • † top dog :pedomustdie: (dcc@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 02:12:55 JST † top dog :pedomustdie:

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • ≠
     @djsumdog @amerika @eriner >it has to in order for things to work
     Again, its becuase people want to rule over others, its not really about "working better" its a human problem.
   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 30-Apr-2024 02:12:56 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • † top dog :pedomustdie:
     • ≠
     or because it just naturally arises because it has to in order for things to work. This constantly happens in nature. There is one queen bee and thousands of workers/drones. They have evolved to work somewhat independently, but they have also evolved to serve the colony.