Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and I've explained that the entire concept of a legitimate right to rule another human is logically impossible.
And yet, it has also historically proven to be an inevitable outcome of large amounts of humans living together; which is probably the source of the Utopian accusations.
Then you just fragment the power down to smaller and smaller chunks, which means it takes less and less power to procedurally dominate said small chunks. It becomes vulnerable to smaller and smaller threats both externally and internally. I agree that the power of an organization in human society is largely derived from peoples belief in the validity of that power, much like the value of a currency or commodity.
Say Canada wanted to conquer the USA; it would be much easier for them to crush small factions of 5-10 people one at a time than it would be for them to fight their combined might all at once. That is one external example.
I don't see the problem though. First, I don't know why it would be groups of 5-10 people, and second, those factions can still organize and pool resources by choice to fight off the Canadians if they don't want to be taken over. It's just economics really...if people want something enough, they'll choose to make it happen. If they decide "well we don't want to join together" then they get taken over.
It's like Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. Even groups that don't like each other will join forces to defend their own lives.
I don't see the problem though. First, I don't know why it would be groups of 5-10 people, and second, those factions can still organize and pool resources by choice to fight off the Canadians if they don't want to be taken over. It's just economics really...if people want something enough, they'll choose to make it happen. If they decide "well we don't want to join together" then they get taken over.
It's like Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. Even groups that don't like each other will join forces to defend their own lives.
I just pulled 5-10 people out of my ass, the idea is that the more granular and balanced the power is among a given population, the lower the level is for each of the individual units vs the amount of total concentrated power when viewed as a whole.
Time is an extremely important factor in warfare, organization takes time, organizing people is like herding cats. A pre organized force vs a completely ad hoc organized force will always be at an extreme advantage, to make up for that, you will need either a huge advantage in numbers(and prepare for a very massive casualty disparity, you will die in much greater numbers than they will) or a massive technological advantage to make up the difference.
And yet, it has also historically proven to be an inevitable outcome of large amounts of humans living together; which is probably the source of the Utopian accusations.
But numerous social structures have been abandoned as we've evolved.
Your statist laws even reflect these changes. Men used to legally beat their wives. Rape too. A man used to legally own another man.
Perhaps the social contract can be ditched.
I mean...don't you find it a bit disturbing that sliding out of a birthing canal automatically means you can't fish without a license?
I should try this approach of yours with a client of mine who has been battling us a bit on the wording of a contract we are negotiating.
I'll take my version of the contract, find myself the world's largest vagina, stuff him in there, and when he slides back out...Voila! The contract has now been consented to.
And yet, it has also historically proven to be an inevitable outcome of large amounts of humans living together; which is probably the source of the Utopian accusations.
Honestly, I don't think the masses are rational enough to change their minds on their own. My personal take on it is that most people don't have time or interest in thinking about this stuff, so they defer to people they view as experts...authors, TV stars, professors, etc... so if you can get those experts on board, the rest will likely follow.
Won't be easy, but it's much more realistic than having to change millions of people's minds individually.
I just pulled 5-10 people out of my ass, the idea is that the more granular and balanced the power is among a given population, the lower the level is for each of the individual units vs the amount of total concentrated power when viewed as a whole.
Time is an extremely important factor in warfare, organization takes time, organizing people is like herding cats. A pre organized force vs a completely ad hoc organized force will always be at an extreme advantage, to make up for that, you will need either a huge advantage in numbers(and prepare for a very massive casualty disparity, you will die in much greater numbers than they will) or a massive technological advantage to make up the difference.
I just pulled 5-10 people out of my ass, the idea is that the more granular and balanced the power is among a given population, the lower the level is for each of the individual units vs the amount of total concentrated power when viewed as a whole.
Time is an extremely important factor in warfare, organization takes time, organizing people is like herding cats. A pre organized force vs a completely ad hoc organized force will always be at an extreme advantage, to make up for that, you will need either a huge advantage in numbers(and prepare for a very massive casualty disparity, you will die in much greater numbers than they will) or a massive technological advantage to make up the difference.
Maybe so. In that case, a stateless society/societies would need to have a plan in place. I think that's what many of the founders were going for when they were against a standing army and for a well-regulated militia, meaning a well-maintained one.
But numerous social structures have been abandoned as we've evolved.
Your statist laws even reflect these changes. Men used to legally beat their wives. Rape too. A man used to legally own another man.
True, and it will likely continue evolving in a similar way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Perhaps the social contract can be ditched.
Impossible, anywhere you got more than one person living in proximity, you got a social contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I mean...don't you find it a bit disturbing that sliding out of a birthing canal automatically means you can't fish without a license?
Meh, there are worse things that can happen, it is easy to nitpick 1000 things wrong with our system, much harder to come up with an alternative that will work in its place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I should try this approach of yours with a client of mine who has been battling us a bit on the wording of a contract we are negotiating.
I'll take my version of the contract, find myself the world's largest vagina, stuff him in there, and when he slides back out...Voila! The contract has now been consented to.
I would just have the doors of my office be vagina doors. Not sure if the state is going to be willing to lend you its power for that strategy though.
Maybe so. In that case, a stateless society/societies would need to have a plan in place. I think that's what many of the founders were going for when they were against a standing army and for a well-regulated militia, meaning a well-maintained one.
Also the idea behind separation of powers. Attempting to use what they knew would be the concentration of power as a balance against itself by dividing it into (supposedly) equally but differently powered chunks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What possible reason could there be for it not working!?
