Some oppressors (indirectly, but essentially) started drawing lines one day and agreed that they would each get to farm the humans in their own territory. Modern governments run under the same framework, with pretty much the same expectations. Much of the oppression has been internalized and normalized, and the cattle now tell themselves they don’t want to be free because their rancher told them about fictional wolves that conveniently exist everywhere past the imaginary line that serves as a fence.
The end effect is that governments today almost always extract more their populations than they give back. Government is the system that establishes a stable funnel to redirect wealth and comfort from the bottom to the top. And it’s doubly abusive because the government monopolizes power, then leaves a power vacuum whenever it fails which screws over the masses a second time.
We all basically live under mafias running racketeering operations, and we are also expected to give our lives and passions to protect those those operations. If you try to break up the racket, some pawns will come and throw you in jail or shoot you.
Alternate systems of societal organization exist, but we have no interest in pursuing them. We’re happy just dealing with the problems that we choose to make for ourselves.
Perhaps. But I think there are other criteria that need to be met to qualify as a good government. For example if any government facilitated an economy of consumerism and infinite growth capitalism, but also forbid itself from doing anything meaningful to impede the resulting collapse, then I wouldn’t call that good. And I suspect that these bullet points would not prevent consumerism from developing in a democracy that is otherwise similar to the ones that many of us live in.
If you don’t change the economic system then you’ll just run into exactly the same problems as we already have. The one year term elected officials will be handed pre-written legislation by corporations, they’ll be heavily incentivized to pass it, if they don’t it’ll be a short turn around before the people with Capital can try again, and if they instead try to pass their own legislation that Capital doesn’t approve of it they’ll get the next person to undo it.
Some oppressors (indirectly, but essentially) started drawing lines one day and agreed that they would each get to farm the humans in their own territory.
Control goes back further than just territories to tribes. The tribe identity is only later tied to specific locations. Tribes formed because pooling resources burdens and learning was more efficient than doing it all yourself. From there, the tribes expanded and joined together and eventually settled into one location. So I disagree that oppressors just decided one day.
Tribal structures have minimal power differentials, it wasn’t until agriculture (and the first ‘countries’) that this kind of systemic exploitation became so practical. Much has been written on how the advent of agriculture revolutionized the pooling of resources, also enabling their unequal distribution and the hierarchy that establishes which serves to propagate increasing disparity over generations. These types of material conditions are notably absent in the pre-agricultural record. I would agree though that the instincts used to abuse most likely evolved in a hunter-gatherer social intelligence context.
This was the case before countries existed. The territories used to be limited to how far the human cattle could walk, be productive and walk back home in day.
Freedom is only possible where the possibility of encountering other humans is negligible.
Whenever humans aglomerate, non productive humans require handouts to live. If they do not receive then they die. If they don’t want to die, they will steal. If the other humans resist, there will be a struggle and whoever wins becomes the state.
I think keeping population below 1 per square kilometer and spread out is the best solution to the state predation problem.
And I appreciate how you took the disagreement. I would have preferred to engage with your ideas directly, I think that would have been more respectful, but it’s been a stressful day and I ran out of time/energy.
You won’t see it in your lifetime. About 150,000 people die a day assuming no natural disasters or disease. 7.9 billion / 150,000 = 52,666 days. About 144 years for your dream.
Whenever humans aglomerate, non productive humans require handouts to live. If they do not receive then they die. If they don’t want to die, they will steal.
the cattle now tell themselves they don’t want to be free because their rancher told them about fictional wolves that conveniently exist everywhere past the imaginary line that serves as a fence.
The Chinese who took over Hong Kong don’t seem very fictional.
I have another one: Countries.
Some oppressors (indirectly, but essentially) started drawing lines one day and agreed that they would each get to farm the humans in their own territory. Modern governments run under the same framework, with pretty much the same expectations. Much of the oppression has been internalized and normalized, and the cattle now tell themselves they don’t want to be free because their rancher told them about fictional wolves that conveniently exist everywhere past the imaginary line that serves as a fence.
The end effect is that governments today almost always extract more their populations than they give back. Government is the system that establishes a stable funnel to redirect wealth and comfort from the bottom to the top. And it’s doubly abusive because the government monopolizes power, then leaves a power vacuum whenever it fails which screws over the masses a second time.
We all basically live under mafias running racketeering operations, and we are also expected to give our lives and passions to protect those those operations. If you try to break up the racket, some pawns will come and throw you in jail or shoot you.
Alternate systems of societal organization exist, but we have no interest in pursuing them. We’re happy just dealing with the problems that we choose to make for ourselves.
A government could be good. In theory:
I’m sure there’s other ideas regarding this.
Who asseses people’s capabilities in this system? As they are likely the most powerful people.
Perhaps. But I think there are other criteria that need to be met to qualify as a good government. For example if any government facilitated an economy of consumerism and infinite growth capitalism, but also forbid itself from doing anything meaningful to impede the resulting collapse, then I wouldn’t call that good. And I suspect that these bullet points would not prevent consumerism from developing in a democracy that is otherwise similar to the ones that many of us live in.
If you don’t change the economic system then you’ll just run into exactly the same problems as we already have. The one year term elected officials will be handed pre-written legislation by corporations, they’ll be heavily incentivized to pass it, if they don’t it’ll be a short turn around before the people with Capital can try again, and if they instead try to pass their own legislation that Capital doesn’t approve of it they’ll get the next person to undo it.
With 1 year and no second term they’re just gonna steal everything within their reach from day 1, so we need to balance it with:
Then, maybe.
It’d need to be a system that automates itself instead of needing surveillance. Something that simply disincentivizes corruption.
How about “if you accept the bribe, report it and do nothing, you can keep it”?
Control goes back further than just territories to tribes. The tribe identity is only later tied to specific locations. Tribes formed because pooling resources burdens and learning was more efficient than doing it all yourself. From there, the tribes expanded and joined together and eventually settled into one location. So I disagree that oppressors just decided one day.
I did say it was indirect…
Tribal structures have minimal power differentials, it wasn’t until agriculture (and the first ‘countries’) that this kind of systemic exploitation became so practical. Much has been written on how the advent of agriculture revolutionized the pooling of resources, also enabling their unequal distribution and the hierarchy that establishes which serves to propagate increasing disparity over generations. These types of material conditions are notably absent in the pre-agricultural record. I would agree though that the instincts used to abuse most likely evolved in a hunter-gatherer social intelligence context.
This was the case before countries existed. The territories used to be limited to how far the human cattle could walk, be productive and walk back home in day.
Freedom is only possible where the possibility of encountering other humans is negligible.
Whenever humans aglomerate, non productive humans require handouts to live. If they do not receive then they die. If they don’t want to die, they will steal. If the other humans resist, there will be a struggle and whoever wins becomes the state.
I think keeping population below 1 per square kilometer and spread out is the best solution to the state predation problem.
That’s a rather curious historical narrative. I can’t say that I agree with it.
That’s probably the most polite disagreement I’ve ever had, I think I’ll save this comment !
And I appreciate how you took the disagreement. I would have preferred to engage with your ideas directly, I think that would have been more respectful, but it’s been a stressful day and I ran out of time/energy.
1 per square kilometer is physically impossible unless you plan on finding a way to kill 7.9 billion people.
Earth has 146 million square kilometers of land.
It’s a neat idea but I think “the largest genocide in the history of humanity” kinda outweighs your solution.
About 64 million square km is habitable. Everyone stop having babies until we reach this number. That’s how we can have a stateless borderless utopia.
You won’t see it in your lifetime. About 150,000 people die a day assuming no natural disasters or disease. 7.9 billion / 150,000 = 52,666 days. About 144 years for your dream.
I’m fine to plant the idea of a borderless countryless stateless world without war even if I never sit in its shade
I find this admirable.
Can’t tell whether sarcasm or high.
Yeah, we know, politicians.
You got it, the mediators between us and them. See Europe and their history with romas people, for what it looks like when this peace breaks down.
The Chinese who took over Hong Kong don’t seem very fictional.