From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 17:21:42 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
After all, even under anarchy, people can use sortition to select -- or
they can decide to let the high-IQ people make the rules. This will
happen, especially, if they outcompetes other methods.
### Yes, but will they be able to force their decisions on others? A perfect
anarchy would not allow the initiation of force for any reasons at all
(correct me if I am wrong), thus limiting the ability of the persons
involved to achieve their goals.
-----
They will still,
however, face competition under market anarchy where under your
"demarchy" -- I only put it in quotes because I believe someone else
used the term many years before you to mean something different (perhaps
"sophocracy" would be more accurate: "rule by the wise") -- the method
would be kind of final and power would be concentrated and ripe for a
takeover. I fear that it would only be a little while before clever
people take over the system and use it for their ends.
### I think the best term would be sophocratic demarchy - thank you for the
suggestion :-)
Won't clever people try to take over the anarchy?
-----
Even with your bicameral legislature, this does not completely remove
the incentives toward abusing power. (It certainly does not stop
do-gooders either.)
### You are right - but then I do not hope for perfection. The most potent
element limiting abuse is the strictly enforced requirement that legislators
must be subject to the rules they make for all citizens - no possibility of
passing legislation affecting differentially the legislators should exist,
except by a universal referendum. If you really have to live with the
results of every decision you make as a congressman, you will be much more
circumspect in making them, and the need for a 2/3 majority to pass every
law will make for only the most direly needed laws. If this requirement were
relaxed (as in allowing former legislators to receive compensation for their
behavior, e.g. by receiving sinecures), the system would rot - but then,
nothing lasts forever. The existence of free press, transparency of all
governmental structures (requirement for 24/7 video feed from every MP, for
at least 10 years after his draft), absence of an entrenched political class
(with the draft replacing e.g. 1/3 MPs every year), all these should help
stave of the (inevitable?) end.
------
At least, with anarchism, in order for society to get to that level, a
central government has to be formed first. With minarchy or demarchy,
it's already in place and one merely has to outmaneuver the checks and
balances to remove the constraints on governmental power.
### With anarchy there is no ruthless force dedicated to the prevention of a
government's formation. It will then appear, unopposed. We keep coming back
to the same question - who will in an anarchy keep the gunmen away, or stop
them from ganging together to form the government of your worst nightmares?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:04 MST