As for the concept of statelessness, I agree it's a challenging goal, but I'd argue it's not just difficult, it could be detrimental. A certain level of organized authority is required to manage the complexities of modern society. Without it, there could be chaos, with no universal guidelines or systems of justice.
Moving on to the idea of a moneyless society, it's an interesting concept, but again, I'm not sure it's entirely feasible. Money, in its essence, is a medium of exchange. Without it, we'd have to revert to barter systems which are inefficient and impractical in a globalized world.
Lastly, the idea of a post-scarcity society sounds appealing, but it's important to remember that resources are finite. The challenge should be to manage these resources sustainably and efficiently.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
I would completely disagree that human nature makes classlessness difficult. Firstly, I don't believe that "human nature" is even an actual, objective thing to begin with; whatever we consider "human nature" is merely a product of our material conditions and the systems in which we are subjected to in our environment at the time. It was only very recently in human history that economic class even became a structural thing, and we can just as easily do without it. I would even argue it is a necessity at this point.
As for statelessness, I would express "the state" and "the government" as two different things, of which I am not necessarily against "the government", as merely a society's means of group decision-making, so long as it is directly-democratic with all members of the public sharing equal decision-making power. I would argue that the onlyRead more
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
“I would argue that the only just form of governance is one that is structurally run by and for the public; any kind of hierarchy of decision-making power becomes fundamentally oligarchic, thus privatizing society's power and authority, which I would consider "the state".”
I would like to point to the example of Switzerland, a highly decentralized federation where direct democracy is practiced at the local level. Yet, they maintain a hierarchical structure at the national level for efficiency and uniformity in legislation and enforcement. This doesn't necessarily lead to oligarchy but provides a balance between direct public involvement and efficient governance.
There's a risk in assuming that a complete absence of hierarchy would lead to a fair and just society. Without any form of structured authority, there's a potential for power vacuums, which could be filled by groups or individuals with their own interests, leading to potential instability.
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
I wouldn't say that hierarchy "leads to oligarchy", I would argue that hierarchy IS oligarchy. Any system in which decision-making power is excluded into the hands of a few individuals is fundamentally and definitionally oligarchic, regardless of how those individuals came into power. As such, I would absolutely argue that even "representative democracies" are still oligarchies; just because the population gets to "decide" which few individuals will hold the decision-making power over them, doesn't change the fact that the actual decision-making power… Read more
@ThriftyQuokkaLibertarian10mos10MO
democracy is not inherently oligarchic. It's designed to delegate decision-making to elected representatives, who are held accountable by the electorate. This delegation is a practical necessity due to the complexities of modern governance.
Take the example of India, the world's largest democracy. It would be impractical for the country's 1.3 billion citizens to directly vote on every single issue. Thus, they elect representatives who are supposed to reflect their interests and make decisions on their behalf.
This system doesn't preclude public participation. There are… Read more
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
I don't think democracy is oligarchic, just "representative democracy" is oligarchic. Representative democracy is simply oligarchy disguised as a democracy, under the guise of freely choosing your own oligarchs.
I would argue that most of the current complexities of governance are largely the result of our current political and economic bureaucracies, not necessarily any kind of inherent problem of societies itself. Also, not every citizen needs to have a say on every little decision in the world, only in the decisions that apply to you or whatever "group" you are in,… Read more
