You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Are You Confused by the Word "Anarchy"?

in #anarchylast year

ruler /ˈruːlə/ a person exercising government or dominion source

The group cannot exist without social rules. Wolfs, lions, and humans live governed by rules. Even flocks of birds and fish are governed by rules.

Where the rules come from? If not the King, democratic majority? Even Socrates 24 centuries ago had a negative opinion on democracy. Take US democracy. US citizen can choose a person to be the next president as long as (s)he's one of the two pre-chosen people in the country...
Steem whales? Who has money, has power? But no, no rulers.

But whoever sets the rules and executes them is seen as a ruler by those who disagree. But who sets the rules and how, such that everybody is happy?

Or at least - how to make rules without a ruler?

(says hotbit still confused what anarchy is)

Sort:  

Rules can be set in any number of ways, including voluntary blockchain protocols. DACs can play a role as well (see https://eosdac.io/ ). They key being that the participants voluntarily agree to the rules they themselves participate in creating. Via smart contract bonds, etc, they can lock of value to ensure the rules are followed or when not followed, other participants are made whole.

Blockchain-based solution?

  • Initial ruler chooses voting rules
  • Influencers push the public to vote solutions they desire or they are paid to market (like US democracy being a democracy)
  • Will electronic chips under the skin of each participant be implanted to ensure each one has one voice only?
  • rules or law will not be enforced; (say you live in a village and travel to another village 150 miles away; due to human nature, if any problem occurs, in 99% cases you will be found guilty by their local authority)

I don't think anarchy is any better in general. See tribes in Amazonia, some remnants of state-less regions. They murder members of other tribes without blinking an eye. Another remnant, Zomia. While partly forced by China, they themselves want to join the state, and live easier lives within advanced civilization.

I don't think stateless countries can exist in the XXI century, as civilization advances. There are simply too many people on Earth and density plays a vital role. Systems undergo self-organization and states win against stateless regions.

EDIT
Law enforcement example in the state-less society.

This is what law enforcement looks like in a voluntary society:

You can also check out Detroit Threat Management: https://reason.com/video/detroit-threat-management-anarchy-in-det/

I agree density is a problem, but I don't agree "human nature" demands only one approach. Often that term is just a catch all for an individual's lived experiences. If the be good, it be good. If they be bad, it be bad. We can build hyper-local systems which take into account density.

Comparing primitive cultures low on Maslow's Hierarchy without technology isn't a fair comparison.

Calling someone who sets up the initial rules a "ruler" isn't accurate. In a DAC, the rules can be changed at any time by the elected custodians. The initial rule set (the constitution) defines the community. This is open source, so anyone can create a different community if they want to change the rules but can't get support of the community that actually likes the rules as they are.

Enforcement can be done with code and smart contracts, not guns and violence. That's the key which changes everything.