• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Enforcers only become rulers when they’re given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.

    The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.

    If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it’s actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.

    Humans are supposed to be GREATER than “dumb animals”, yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it’s unnatural… NO SHIT!! That’s the entire point!!

    In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary “ruler” (that doesn’t ‘have’ to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.

    • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution

      Rules don’t have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.

      Your conception of “natural tendencies” and “the strong eat the weak” smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.

      You’re wrong, plain and simple

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        More than wrong, second order wrong, drawing the wrong bad conclusions from ideas that are themselves nonsense and wrong. So they have to reconsider not only a conclusion, but fundamental ideas. Its a big ask, I’m not sure its worth the interaction.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        You are beyond stupid if you cannot fathom how my explanation of nature was to SEPARATE out the good intentions of societal rules … right? The fact you take an allegory literally is just pathetic communication skills. Try to understand what I’m saying, not what some sub-selection of my words returns you from Google…

        • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Do you have empirical evidence that societal rules are borne of good intentions and not complete fabrications, made up entirely to suit the needs of those in power? Social organization (including rules) are a human concept that are malleable and changeable. Can you prove that enforcement is needed to have a functioning society? You’re so confident in your assertions, how about you put up some proof behind it?

          Your allegory is used by social darwinists. It’s a bad allegory. If it doesn’t accurately convey the sentiment you were attempting to express it’s your own fault. Write with intent and be precise

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What’s to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Almost like the world we live in is thoroughly fucked and we need to change a lot to make it not suck, and if it were easy somebody probably would’ve done it by now?

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes exactly. That’s why anarchy is a little more complicated than, “lol no rulers”.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Look at it from an information theory (applied to organization it’s called systems theory, cybernetics, or scientific management) perspective: when you put one guy in charge of too much stuff (and let’s face it; its usually gonna be a guy, because misogyny ud a feature not a bug of these systems), you have to compress all the data coming to him, and all the orders will be based on increasingly shitty abstracted models as you try to make him in charge of more stuff. Even if that guy is the absolute best, he literally cannot have good information, and the more fine grained his control, basically the more its just a crap shoot.

      So yes. Centralized authority is bad, and it can be proven with math. You can try to hedge it, you can try to optimize it, but its got a fundamental flaw, not just from a moral perspective, but a mathematical one. Please don’t make me look up the actual numbers; I’m on mobile.

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Got any reading suggestions for systems theory for people with little/no academic background? I want to read into it but people usually link college textbooks for advanced classes lol

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          So you should probably understand at least the idea of information theory, ‘the information: a history, a theory, a flood’ is a great conceptual explain/primer/pop-sci book on that.

          ‘Seeing like a state’ is a little specific, but its specific about this idea.

          • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’ll check that out, thanks. Funny you mention seeing like a state, I just finished it last weekend. I was kind of getting that vibe from it, having watched/listened to stuff about complex systems before. But Ive been intimidated by the nature of most writing on complex systems

            • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              It can get pretty dense; any field with con Neumann involved does that.

              Theres a podcast called ‘general intellect unit’ about this stuff. Also has book recommends.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I AM NOT DEFENDING CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY!! Holy fuck, you idiots literally cannot understand the concept that distributed authority is still authority…

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist.

      Yes, that’s the fundamental contradiction of anarchism. Rules need rulers.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Anarchism IS NOT about “no rule makers”. It is wholly about JUSTIFIED AUTHORITY, not NO authority.

        • Meatballs@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Can you cite a source that says this that isn’t Wikipedia please? Or are you just making it up to fit your own personal beliefs about the subject

          Or are you just going to continue to call people stupid without backing anything up, huh?

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Oh look, nothing but an ignorant, obstinant attempt at an insult. Maybe you’ll get one when you prove to be smarter than a triggered 11 year old.

            • Meatballs@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Lol, okay so this is how you respond when asked for a citation on something you made up

              Tells me everything I need to know about you

              Can you tell me how asking for you to cite something is a bad thing? Or are you gonna throw another temper tantrum. And you say I’m the triggered 11 year old, but really dude, look at your comment. It’s either a low effort trolling or someone so dense they are incapable of self reflection