hisich wrote:
As I said, I used to hold some ridiculous libertarian views fairly recently myself (but still wholeheartedly agree about the nature of The State), so I can't criticize you too much. You'll either grow out of them or you won't.
I can't say that I will ever "grow out" of wanting liberty. I do understand how you could view it that way. It is easy to LARP as a principled person when you have no kids and no assets. As you get older and things start to get real most un-principled people drop the act and start working towards security for their stuff. My principles have been sincerely held my entire life. Adding responsibilities like my four kids, house, and job do not make me want to throw out my principles out of fear.
dingus wrote: Yes, we should leave them alone to be ruled by a successful government just like........... When the hell has the world ever witnessed a government that made anyone's life better? There is no such thing as a "broken" state, they are broken by nature.
Does the United States government make life worse for everyone outside of the club? Yes. Does every single government make life worse for everyone outside the club? Yes. Government in general is the problem, not just the US government.
I understand the sentiment but the reality is that some form of social contract/organized community management system is universal in recorded human history. Obviously a "govern- [control] -ment [mind]" isn't my ideal form of social management either but I don't find the anarcho-nihilist approach very useful either.
I think if we take honest stock of all the extant societies around the world we will find that there is a happy medium between authoritarian state and anarchic control by the most physically powerful where the people as a whole experience the most freedom. My personal aim is to move my community toward that happy medium. On a personal level I think we can all do that best by limiting our dependence on large, impersonal systems. But I don't have any illusions that I'm going to be able to stop Exxon or Dow Chemical from poisoning my watershed with out a government scale organization
hisich wrote: Eventually the realization that mixing foreign/incompatible cultures/peoples together is an awful idea will become obvious to even the most naive libertarians & communists.
The most influential and powerful places on earth have historically been places with lots of mixing of foreign cultures. If you don't feel like you can maintain your cultural integrity amidst an ocean of other cultures then I would suggest looking at tools to strengthen the integrity of your own internal culture.
personman wrote: I don't find the anarcho-nihilist approach very useful either....
...I don't have any illusions that I'm going to be able to stop Exxon or Dow Chemical from poisoning my watershed with out a government scale organization
Freedom isn't "useful" and that is why people truly don't care about it. As a young libertarian I was mystified that more people weren't also the same way. The common line was that we had the best product, we just needed to get the message out better. As I got older I realized that we were wrong. We have a very unpopular product. For every COVID fearing hater of liberty, we have a corporation fearing hater of liberty. A very small minority of folks actually want true liberty for themselves and those around them, because liberty is a dangerous thing, you could kill yourself and nobody would stop you.
As to your broader point, you will find that the most just and cohesive "organized community management systems" (I like that term) are centered around the Family. As long as your tribe is based on family kinship it will operate pretty well. Once you start confederating with other families things start to break down. Once you remove the family kinship aspect entirely I cannot think of a single "system" that has made the lives of the member population better. Maybe better than an alternative form of government, but not better than nothing.
Pollution is one of the more common tropes for anti-liberty folks. Just think how easily we could take care of polluting corporations if we removed government protections from them. The government is what makes a corporation effective, by preventing the people from taking out their grievances directly against the executives that harm them.
dingus wrote: A very small minority of folks actually want true liberty for themselves and those around them, because liberty is a dangerous thing, you could kill yourself and nobody would stop you.
That is very well said. Might have to use that line in the future.
dingus wrote: As to your broader point, you will find that the most just and cohesive "organized community management systems" (I like that term) are centered around the Family. As long as your tribe is based on family kinship it will operate pretty well. Once you start confederating with other families things start to break down. Once you remove the family kinship aspect entirely I cannot think of a single "system" that has made the lives of the member population better. Maybe better than an alternative fo
That is also a good point. I've been circling around this idea for years about the alchemical connection between the breaking of the atom and then the creation and destruction of "the nuclear family" and how that idea/agenda connects to the concerted effort to deconstruct the value and existence of cohesive familial units.
I believe that the combination that works to create stable social forms is extended familial bonds anchored to a place. Diverse cultures interface successfully and profitably for both when they are spatially stable enough to grow and develop a web of kinship. Transient populations seem to drive instability, which may shed some light on the apparent agenda for constant roving conflict to create diaspora.
I do think that society is a crystalline structure and that very small seed cells can aggregate broader stable social structures around them. That's why I've been focusing on turning more of my energies inward since the second half of last year, and creating more intentional culture around myself, my family, and my immediate circle.
dingus wrote: Pollution is one of the more common tropes for anti-liberty folks. Just think how easily we could take care of polluting corporations if we removed government protections from them. The government is what makes a corporation effective, by preventing the people from taking out their grievances directly against the executives that harm them.
I don't think that's a fair generalization about "governments". Our particular manifestation does protect corporate interest currently for sure. And I understand that the existence of government becomes an instant target for corruption. But I don't see how we could " take our grievance directly to" the wrong doers without some overarching social structure like a government. If it just came down to might we would have to rally a group that was large and organized enough to raid their location and then exert our judgement on them or something.
My personal preference at this point would be that "incorporating" would be a pathway to various forms of limited liability provided by the organization structure but would come with strict regulation up to the point that you could be unlicensed for violations and disbanded fairly easily. For groups willing to take true responsibility for their actions there would be largely unregulated access to commercial enterprise, but the principles and employees could be ultimately held personally liable for any harm.
But I'm getting off into overly specific tangent here and I'm not super interested in discussing the minutia of macrosocial organization. I just think the issue of the despoiling of communal resources is one of the most obvious places where some sort of coherent authority with broad geographical range is valuable
