You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Matter of Scale

in #anarchy4 years ago (edited)

This is a good analogy if you take it a little farther. You're right that the notion is a camping dictator is absurd, but it is also clear that there is a need for the capacity to make collective decisions - where to set up camp, what group activities to engage in, and that there's a natural delineation between what the collective should decide and what individuals should decide.

Any group of people is going to need a system for deciding who gets to consume what resources, who gets to dump their waste where, etc, but it doesn't have to be a top-hierarchal notion of a state.

This is the distinction between government and governance. The former is arguably unnecessary, and usually oppressive. The latter is necessary if pursued conscientiously, liberating.


I think that's where public choice theory could come into play. It's a field of economics that studies how groups of people manage a commons without a governing body.

Insert mandatory Elinor Ostrom citation

I'm not sure why you would call it "governance," but otherwise I agree. "Governance" is from the same root as "governing," which almost always means one person or group forcibly controlling another. Consensus and agreement are not that.

You can use whatever words you choose; there are other more apt words to be found. When I say "government" here, I'm referring to a state or particular ruler. When I say "governance", I'm referring to the system by which group behavior emerges, whether it be through voluntary or involuntary processes. In the analogy, you and your friends aren't just aimlessly wandering the forest. There is deliberation and coordination of behavior.

It's going to be a great day when force and violence isn't used by government, because there won't be any.

governance - because we need some kind of control, or there will be anarchy!

government = control of the mind.
governance = control, using force over others.
anarchy = the absence of rulers.

In the future, things will be decided by all whom it affects.
There will not be a formal structure, it will just happen because that is the proper thing to do.
It will probably happen by the thing that replaces google making sure that all residents, and common visitors are notified of a proposed change. And then a discussion/forum will take place.

To proceed without this process will result in a backlash that no one will want to face. Further, having happy neighbors is of paramount importance.

There will be no governance creating this far better outcome.
In face, governance always puts a stop to actual discussion. Ending up with those with power silencing their opposition.

That is not how I'm those words. See my other response.

Yes, I saw that. And I do not agree with your choice of how to use those words.
I do understand that government schooling has minced these words badly, and so they must be made proper, and defined such.

The words you are looking for are government and community.

Community is the system by which group behavior emerges.
It does not come about by someone (with "authority") shouting that this should be the way the group behaves. In fact, if such happens, it usually has the opposite effect.

i.e. "Don't commit suicide, call this number for help" - increases the rate of suicides wherever it is posted.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.68
TRX 0.10
JST 0.075
BTC 57684.07
ETH 4591.62
BNB 627.38
SBD 7.24