From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 13:23:47 MST
Eugen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> Very good points. I presented much the same arguments to Dan some
>> time ago, but he's a tough cookie :-), still wants the glory of the
>> anarchy, even if it won't last too long. Did you read our discussions
>> on the demarchy? This would be one way of getting a bit closer to the
>> ideal of freedom for all, without giving up the stability that a
>> little bit of enslavement brings.
>
> As long as you can't change the properties of the average human agent
> the resulting change in society structure will remain unstable.
### Largely you are right but there are two additional elements to the
equation: technological progress and cultural change. Technology does change
the stable patterns of power distribution. Fifty k-year ago the ultimate
arguments came at the end of a sharp stick. Now, power comes from the
complex web of interactions between agents that can organize and equip a
well-trained and dedicated army. This society is in many important ways much
different from the hunter-gatherer horde.
Cultural change does also play a role. You can't simply build a democracy
out of illiterate serfs, as long as all they imagine is being serfs, they
will be serfs. Changing the expectations about the community (e.g. voting,
taxes, welfare) does change the type of social organization possible, within
some limits imposed by the physical world, and its emergent properties. It
is a type of change in the properties of the average human agent but
probably not what you meant.
I don't think it's possible to build a stable anarchy (stable over more than
one generation in the presence of aggressive neighbors) but a minarchy might
be possible, especially if the average IQ reaches levels equivalent to
today's 140's (is this the kind of change you were talking about?)
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:03 MST