tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3623603988319454163.post6174980802888553346..comments2023-03-24T01:22:04.280-07:00Comments on Poseidon Awoke: Aristocratic EgalitarianismPoseidonAwokehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14806975386605873723noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3623603988319454163.post-77566431125805181222014-11-25T12:48:21.305-08:002014-11-25T12:48:21.305-08:00Anarchy is absolutely a confusing name, but we see...Anarchy is absolutely a confusing name, but we seem to be stuck with it. I'd use akratism, but it's patently failed to make inroads. <br /><br />If you can't unilaterally leave the syndicalisms or communes, they're not anarchy. I have trouble believing they'd survive if they weren't illegitimately retaining members. However, if I'm wrong...well, good on them. <br /><br />You can of course try to sidestep hierarchy, but it fails twice. First, hobbits like hierarchy; they don't join attempted flat societies. Second, you tend to get informal chimp hierarchy. Societies have to have leaders as a matter of logical necessity. Conflicts must be resolved or the society splinters, ultimately into individuals - and whoever gets their way is de facto the leader.<br /><br />Steel anarchism has no principled objection to large-scale leaders, as long as you're allowed to leave. (Or intentionally signed a contract stating they can't.) I think in practice it will be necessary to have exit-in-place somehow. Steelman homesteading; yes, you can in principle buy vast tracts of uninhabited land solely for the purpose of preventing anyone from living there, much as states would object to me founding a town in the middle of nowhere, even though they're not using it. However, that's simply Exit in name only; the spirit must be respected, because that's the only way to invite Gnon's comment. <br />But perhaps we get it for free. Security on empty land is actually quite expensive, because you have to send patrols that have no other reason to be there, and tons of them to cover with any reliability. Perhaps this cost will deter anyone sane from trying it, and cause the insane to run out of money. <br /><br />Because the members are allowed to leave, the leaders can't externalize the costs of warring on other leaders. As a result their incentives are sane and they don't. Obviously aggressive war is immoral, but if morality enforced itself it would just be prudence and we wouldn't have had to worry about it in the first place. Steel anarchy admits that the principle of property cannot directly prevent warfare. <br /><br />I would like to start my own security firm. I would have sheriffs instead of police. Of course if the police can't do it, it's for political reasons and my sheriffs would have similar troubles. Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com