Oof. for my failure I shall ritualistically behead myself with a bone saw
Oof. for my failure I shall ritualistically behead myself with a bone saw
Meanwhile, basically the exact instant communications caught up to making it possible, virtually every Monarchy of Europe tried its hand at becoming absolutists with an obvious and quite significant plurality of capacity for violence via standing armies belonging to the Crown or synonymous state alone.In fact, I prefer monarchy precisely because monarchs usually did not have a "strong guiding hand"
Meanwhile, basically the exact instant communications caught up to making it possible, virtually every Monarchy of Europe tried its hand at becoming absolutists with an obvious and quite significant plurality of capacity for violence via standing armies belonging to the Crown or synonymous state alone.
The monarchy you idolize just straight-up cannot last in anything resembling the modern world because it's too damned easy to absolutely shred the constraints. You need formal laws specifically mandating devolution and separation of power for it to stick, leaving it to the historic unformal tug-of-war is just waiting for an oligarchy of one sort or another to win that.
What you seem to view as unique downsides of modern democracies are just the "modern" part of it. We can be tyrannical and intrusive in new ways, so states will try it, no different from the French monarchy centralizing as fast as they could remotely get away with and pull a bread-and-circuses on the previous higher nobility to get them out of the way.
Meanwhile, basically the exact instant communications caught up to making it possible, virtually every Monarchy of Europe tried its hand at becoming absolutists with an obvious and quite significant plurality of capacity for violence via standing armies belonging to the Crown or synonymous state alone.
The monarchy you idolize just straight-up cannot last in anything resembling the modern world because it's too damned easy to absolutely shred the constraints. You need formal laws specifically mandating devolution and separation of power for it to stick, leaving it to the historic unformal tug-of-war is just waiting for an oligarchy of one sort or another to win that.
What you seem to view as unique downsides of modern democracies are just the "modern" part of it. We can be tyrannical and intrusive in new ways, so states will try it, no different from the French monarchy centralizing as fast as they could remotely get away with and pull a bread-and-circuses on the previous higher nobility to get them out of the way.
Quite interesting that the excesses of French absolutism eventually paved the way for the French Reign of Terror. When you start with one extreme, you can often subsequently end up at the other extreme rather rapidly. Similar to Russia moving from an absolute monarchy pre-1905 to a totalitarian left-wing dictatorship post-1917.
Anarchist.... I reject all masters regardless of what reason they pretend to have legitimacy .
More Rothbard. I respect Bakunin, but I disagree with his premise that property is agression. However, I fully admit the anarchists of his day helped set the stage.Following in the spirit of Mikhail Bakunin, eh?
Anarchist.... I reject all masters regardless of what reason they pretend to have legitimacy .
Except any leader monarch or elected have the incentive to use propoganda to pretend they are the answer rather than the problem.The legitimacy is the lack of smoke and mirrors. If life is bad, cut the head of the monarch off, you don't have the trail hunting in democracy.
that comes with any form of government. Do you really think an An-Cap governing body (as it is literally impossible not to have one) would not have the same problem? I would say it would be worse as any Anarchist governing body would have to have some form of government structure, and if anything would end up resembling a Soviet style as originally the soviet union was suppose to have an anarchist government until Lenin flipped switch. An-Cap means well, but is impossible, just like with Communism.Except any leader monarch or elected have the incentive to use propoganda to pretend they are the answer rather than the problem.
I would argue, that the answer is not to have large groups, in the modern era there really isn’t the need for big cities, with 3D printing and modern manufacturing techniques small towns are quite capable of being self sufficient, so why have a grouping with a large amount of land.that comes with any form of government. Do you really think an An-Cap governing body (as it is literally impossible not to have one) would not have the same problem? I would say it would be worse as any Anarchist governing body would have to have some form of government structure, and if anything would end up resembling a Soviet style as originally the soviet union was suppose to have an anarchist government until Lenin flipped switch. An-Cap means well, but is impossible, just like with Communism.
I would argue, that the answer is not to have large groups, in the modern era there really isn’t the need for big cities, with 3D printing and modern manufacturing techniques small towns are quite capable of being self sufficient, so why have a grouping with a large amount of land.
So, basically, technologically uplifted versions of the Republic of Cospaia everywhere that freely trade and peaceably interact with one another? Sounds nice in theory, though in practice, I'm not sure how you'd establish those without the government clamping down hard and putting your well-intentioned enterprise to a bloody end. (Well, barring a collapse of the social order and violent Balkanization of the country, in which a bunch of libertarian types band together and carve out hamlet-sized communities for themselves in the margins.)
For a second there, I misread the Republic of Cospaia as the Republic of Cosplaia and wondered if there was actually some kind of republic exclusively for cosplayers lol!
Make no mistake I agree that for the idea to ever come to fruition, the current order must collapse. However, the governments of the world seem to be working overtime to that end. However, we are talking ideals, in life I am also content if government is crippled which again they seem to be working towards.So, basically, technologically uplifted versions of the Republic of Cospaia everywhere that freely trade and peaceably interact with one another? Sounds nice in theory, though in practice, I'm not sure how you'd establish those without the government clamping down hard and putting your well-intentioned enterprise to a bloody end. (Well, barring a collapse of the social order and violent Balkanization of the country, in which a bunch of libertarian types band together and carve out hamlet-sized communities for themselves in the margins. Or, y'know... something like that.)
Make no mistake I agree that for the idea to ever come to fruition, the current order must collapse. However, the governments of the world seem to be working overtime to that end. However, we are talking ideals, in life I am also content if government is crippled which again they seem to be working towards.
The USSR collapsed and none of its nukes were used, unless you are arguing American officials are significantly more corrupt than the Soviet officials, why would the result be different.Maybe, though given how "domesticated" people are—which is to say, trained from day one to depend on government for key amenities and "guidance" when it comes to running society—any collapse will be absolute pandemonium to live through, assuming we survive it at all. Human civilization may not have ended with the Fall of Rome or the World Wars, but considering how nukes are a thing—and that lots of them would go missing in the chaos, if the peaceful breakup of the USSR is any indication—I have significant reservations about our odds of rebuilding from a repeat of either, regardless of political ideals.
The USSR collapsed and none of its nukes were used, unless you are arguing American officials are significantly more corrupt than the Soviet officials, why would the result be different.
I’m talking about if the collapse is violent rather than peaceful, and given how miraculous it was that Soviet dissolution didn’t swing the other way, I question whether we can really get that lucky twice? Plus, it’s not like the US imploding is the only way the current system could crater, since World War III is still on the table.
It's worth noting that the Soviet collapse actually did end up becoming extremely violent--it simply took 20+ years. Hence the Donbass War and the current Russo-Ukrainian War. Russia initially expected Ukraine and the other SSRs to return to it once it recovered and revived its economy, but this didn't really happen (other than sort-of for Belarus), so Russia felt compelled to use force to "solve" this "problem" instead 20+ years down the line.