You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: It was never about capitalism vs communism - it was always about centralized vs decentralized
Centralization isn't imposed. It doesn't come from the Gods.
Humans arrive at centralized governance systems by choice.
I respect the right of people to elect for centralized government.
Yes, and I sometimes think it's a bug in our genome to require somebody else to tell us what to do.
Not sure it's a 'bug'.
We can't have all the knowledge that exists in the world, so at some point we'll have to let someone tell us what to do.
Instead of absorbing certain responsibilities (e.g. security of private keys for a bitcoin wallet), some people would rather sell these responsibilities to others - so that they can be unburdened of it, and can focus on matters that they'd prefer to invest time on.
Centralized government allows for people to do this economically (by spreading the cost among the tax-payers, for example and very generally speaking).
Being ignorant is a universal and eternal condition. It does not mean that someone will have to let someone else tell him what to do. And how would that someone else be in a better position to tell lots of other people what to do, anyway?
Unless you restrict yourself only to the limited knowledge you hold, you will have to let someone tell you what to do.
He'd be in a better position by virtue of the fact he's knowledgeable where others are ignorant.
People can tell me what do as much as they like. It's when they come at me with violence that they've crossed the line and will find themselves in my crosshairs regardless of who they are or how 'good' their intentions.
No, it's more the realization that choices can negatively effect others without the actor even realizing it and that there are scopes which individuals can't really think at all the time. That was poorly worded, but I did write a post about this a couple days ago:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@telos/the-end-of-anarchy-part-i-unconscious-harm
That's just the start, of course. Deliberate actions to profit at the expense of others will probably be a later post.)
It's the ultimate internal dichotomy we try to wrestle: master vs slave.
Centralization is almost always imposed. Only in the smallest communities is it possibly not.
Nope. It's never been imposed. Humans aren't Gods and centralization is achieved through consensus.
I think often people overstate the power of minorities (in this case extreme minorities).
I don't "respect the right of people to elect for centralized government," because all government is is the disrespect of any and all rights. In order for government to exist, it violates the right of self-ownership.
That makes zero sense bro. Either you believe in rights or you don't. If the former is true, you should recognize people's rights to elect for centralized government.
Governments are essentially monopolies on the use of violence. However individuals don't have the "right" to initiate force against innocent people, right? Explain how an individual or a group of individuals can delegate rights that they themselves don't have to other people.
They confer rights to delegated individuals...
Bunch of retards want government. Good for them. What's that got to do with me?
Do you seriously expect to have more freedom of choice under a system that lends itself just as well to centralization?
Do explain how not believing in the right to systematically violate rights makes zero sense.
I believe in rights, and the right to elect a centralized government is the right to infringe on the rights of others. THAT'S what makes zero sense. So, people who "believe in a centralized government" are actually the people who don't believe in rights.
Do you have the right to
-steal
-murder
-rape
-kidnap
-ect?
You know, things that are fundamentally the violation of rights.
If not, then how can you delegate a right that you yourself do not have?
Do explain how the systematic recognition of the rights/sovereignty of others (anarchy/voluntaryism) lends itself to centralization.