> Now you're implying that anarchism, based on more egalitarian principles than what we have now, is "moving backwards"? Or did I misunderstand this?
I think it is not a given that anarchism is more egalitarian, especially if you think, like I do, that it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it. Pure egalitarianism means reverting to the lowest possible common denominator. Many people will not accept that.
When I say forwards and backwards, I mean getting closer to understanding and defining the power dynamics intrinsic to populations of humans. I think code of law is an output of that pursuit, much like software code is there output of the process of defining whatever system it is modeling.
I have to admit that you’ve brought me to the limit of my knowledge with Westrum, haven’t heard of that before. I’ll have to read some things and chew on that a bit.
Low power gradient sounds nice, but I’ll say two things about it OTTOMH: 1) that is not anarchy, and 2) even a very shallow gradient in a world of 7 billion still results in a very wide base of people at the lowest rungs and a very high rung for the upper crust. Ie it can still lead to large inequalities given a sufficiently large society.
I’m not saying that is fair or right, I’m just saying I’m not seeing convincing alternatives.
> it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it
I’ve always thought the opposite is true. A set of rules is bound to be gamed. More rules create more opportunities to exploit (regulation only benefits leechers). When rules are global, profit of exploitation is greater. Therefore, there are more exploiters and exploits. In anarchy, the extent to which a set of rules apply is limited. Therefore, there is less profit from exploitation, and in turn, there are less exploiters.
I think it is not a given that anarchism is more egalitarian, especially if you think, like I do, that it provides easy cover for opportunists to exploit it. Pure egalitarianism means reverting to the lowest possible common denominator. Many people will not accept that.
When I say forwards and backwards, I mean getting closer to understanding and defining the power dynamics intrinsic to populations of humans. I think code of law is an output of that pursuit, much like software code is there output of the process of defining whatever system it is modeling.
I have to admit that you’ve brought me to the limit of my knowledge with Westrum, haven’t heard of that before. I’ll have to read some things and chew on that a bit.
Low power gradient sounds nice, but I’ll say two things about it OTTOMH: 1) that is not anarchy, and 2) even a very shallow gradient in a world of 7 billion still results in a very wide base of people at the lowest rungs and a very high rung for the upper crust. Ie it can still lead to large inequalities given a sufficiently large society.
I’m not saying that is fair or right, I’m just saying I’m not seeing convincing alternatives.