Is the nation state structure part of our current problems?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I think "trade-offs" is a pretty good way to describe it. But while Dunbar-sized groups may tend to be healthier, they wouldn't possess the resources or infrastructure to maintain an industrial society. Which, maybe isn't an altogether bad thing--but we can't turn back the clock without killing billions of people, so I wouldn't say it's practical. Also, smaller groups may make it harder for people who don't fit into the group into which they were born.

"Is the nation state a problem?" is arguably the fundamental question of anarchism, so naturally there's quite a bit of writing on it from both right-wing and left-wing anarchists.

There's plenty of messed-up stuff that happens in small communities where everyone knows each other. Pitcairn is perhaps the ultimate example, but also just the sheer amount of domestic violence. Most murders and most sexual assaults aren't committed by strangers. Cults rely on people trusting the leadership.

As you say, there are trade-offs to any system. But given that one system is the one we have, that works at least OK, and that wouldn't involve massive social upheaval to implement... perhaps it is prudent to stick to nation states and freedom of association.

That's what I'm inclined to think as well. Turning back the clock would result in a horrific amount of deaths, so all we can do is manage things as best we can.

The "nation state" as opposed to...what?

As opposed to World Government?

Or, as opposed to going smaller and having each neighborhood have its own armed services?

Sounds good to me.

You can already find neighborhoods that have their own armed services. They're usually not considered pleasant places in which to live, however.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ ...have personally seen this over and over from first hand experience with great costs ,to life and limb.

I don't know that any of these ideas are good.

World government would iron us flat culturally and demand totalizing conformity if it was actually that.

I do buy plenty of The_Walrus's points about small group communal living in that some small groups would become toxic in otherworldly ways.

I almost think the way to try and grab the benefits of all of the above and minimize the cost is take advantage of the technologies that we have right now to virtualize in more civic structure but do so in pro-social ways. As ever I tend to watch what people like Tristan Harris and Center for Humane Technology come up with, I tend to watch what people like Daniel Schmachtenberger talk about as well (was amazed to actually see him and Tristan addressing a group of Washington DC insiders a year ago with Frank Luntz).

The most important part, in my read of things right now, is to look less at party politics and think more about incentive structures and how we can work on improving them, civic structures and the pressures technologies put on us actually require a response. Much like we're spending a lot of mental and economic energy trying to work out solar, wind, fusion, and grid batteries because we've figured out that putting up millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem, we similarly need to work on technologies that are specifically for keeping the wheels on civilization and in particular ways to make liberal democracy remain tenable or at least the closest equivalent to it that we can manage.

I really don't think there are any easy answers but there are a lot of rarely asked questions or questions that a lot of us don't think about very often because they are either minority questions (get wrapped in association issues - such as with anarchists) or you get such a flow of inertia going in social patterns and movement that the right questions to ask cut almost orthogonal to that flow and it almost takes someone observing that system, for the most part, as an outsider to even think to ask that question. It's sort of that 'a problem properly understood is half solved'.

Regardless of what I think of his views on Ivermectin it was on bright/bold display with the Evergreen insurrection back in 2017 with Bret Weinstein. You got to see where someone in power didn't like that he was getting resistance from well-respected staff and they were able to stir this kind of thing up to clear the roadblocks (eg. Bret, Heather, and anyone sympathetic to their concerns). It doesn't have a political orientation, it's just blatant abuse of the human tendency for tribalism in order to gain power and it should have been a wakeup call to as many people as could process it.

I would prolly prefer anarchocapitalism to living in a nation-state.

The state was always the biggest problem for the majority of humans since states exist. The state is responsible for the worst crimes in the history of humanity. It sends people into their deaths again and again, for the interests of a small group of people, who watch conflicts from a safe distance. It threatens people with violence so they give their money to the state, while these people never voluntarily signed a contract with the state. The state basically enslaves the people to make profit. And then it throws a few breadcrumbs around and says "look, I'm doing it for the common good", while politicians burn gigatons of money for BS.

Typically the state is antagonistic towards fundamental human rights. The state is never the source of fundamental human rights (= natural rights). But the state can protect fundamental human rights against aggressors.

So it could make sense to have a minimal state, which protects the fundamental human rights of people. A state which doesn't protect the fundamental human rights of the people, or even opposes them, does not have a legitimate right to exist.

As for the problem with the people (politicians) who control that state, it may be best to replace them with an artificial intelligence. The core parameters of that artificial intelligence can be programmed by direct democracy (referendums). Because humans are humans. They are selfish. They care about themselves and their power first, not about the good of other people. Politicians can never be trusted. A direct democracy artificial intelligence in charge of the state could be trusted, because it doesn't have an ego.

Obviously I'm biased, because the state threatened violence against me for months, then hunted me, kidnapped me and took away my freedom, because I didn't agree to join its military organization >20 years ago. I can never forgive or forget this traumatic experience.

When things were heating up politically back in 2017 / 2018 I remember Stefan Molyneux and StyxHexenHammer666 having a debate between anarchocapitalism and minarchism. I think my biggest concern with both is how fast either one could yield neofeudalism or technofeudalism. Neofeudalism seems to be what we've already been on glide toward with neoliberalism. While I do think minarchism does try to do something wise in a paleocon way, ie. dial back the power in Washington DC so that power goes back down to states and localities, ie. make DC boring, it would require very bold policies to prevent multinational corporations from effectively amassing their own armies, owning cities, and being the new Medieval lords, especially that it's really dangerous if anyone live in a state who is more wealthy than that state itself.

Enjoys the concepts provided in the above post ! Sorry Silence23 had to go through what he did with the State.!
And has seen this in this Country as well.

Well I would certainly prefer a minarchist gov to the current size and scope of the American Federal Government.I dont know if I am a full blown ancap but I am really close.

If you're referencing how small businesses almost have to cheat these days to stay alive then yeah, when people can't earn a livelihood by honest means or at best break even it's pretty sick, and that ripples through society.

I find myself being someone who can listen to Ed Dutton / Jolly Heretic, Aaron Clarey, and then just as easily pick up what Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky are saying about current situations (before I even start trying to bring up GameB or IDW). The trouble is you have people right across the political spectrum making sense but it's the noise in the middle that we're having a hard time sorting through and each person sees the problem in an incomplete manner, to where where you can rely on different people for different pieces, some people most pieces but they're hard to come by.

I've heard some say that it would be great if people just started treating each other decently but for me that falls along the same line of logic as 'if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle', there's probably nothing anyone's going to be able to do manually to fix that (the being nice part). The only thing I can think of is better and perhaps willfully win-win incentive structures would help reduce the amount of zero-sum and negative-sum competition. With that we might be able to better clear some of the 'buzz' that's causing as much stress and distorting reality for people as they try to dance to the tune of someone else's mental illness.

What kind of win-win incentive structures?