There's a balance to be struck. Without rules and consequences humans are complete animals. Humans are hardwired to dominate and governance is necessary to level the playing field. The trick is to figure out how much freedom is sacrificed for how much security. Balance.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Lack of government does not require a lack of rules and consequences. To the contrary, government gives a blanket exception to an entire class of people, rulers, to operate without said rules and consequences. Without government, an action that violates another's rights is punished with the use of self-defense or an organised resistance. The real trick is to get people to realize that through love of oneself and one's connections, government is not only unnecessary, but also supremely abusive of individual autonomy.
Ah, but who decides when another's rights have been violated? And who decides at what point the punishment is just and at what point it is unjust, thereby violating the rights of the perpetrator?
I love the work of Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke et al but damn, anyone that has been to a kids birthday party has hard time understanding how a society without a big nasty gubberment would function. It's a mess...
I think all current western govs are bloated disasters. But I think the answer is not anarchy but decentralization. Yes, decentralized autonomous companies that are voted in and out by humans based on their programming. They carry out their 'platform' or algo impartially and transparently. The amount of bullshit in the world would drop by an order of magnitude. It's like going from human operated cars to self-driving cars. They don't work in all situations, but the ones that do work are a beautiful thing. Power corrupts, so give it to a machine. Terrifying, yes?