Dunno is anybody noticed but Consumerism is dead. The idea that people need to be manipulated into buying tons of crap they don't need or else the economy will collapse, it's gone. Not completely sure when it died but it's dead now.
@lain@wolfie@cjd has tech changed things enough to counter those horse-archer nomads?was thinking how easy it would be now for anyone with like a large drone and low-powered semi-automatic thing to make effective auto killbots...what happens if eventually 新世界より?
@wolfie@cjd > If this is the case, the best you can hope for is to get there firstI don't agree with this. This only makes sense if a state with a government is indeed the most effective way of organizing a society. If it isn't there's no reason to 'be first'.
@lain@cjd
While I agree with the idea of “no government”, there is a somewhat natural human tendency among some non-trivial section of the species to try and form such, even if it weren’t strictly needed. It helps them further their goals to dominate and control others.
If this is the case, the best you can hope for is to get there first with as limited an entity as possible and then vigorously defend both the concept and arrangement. In theory, this is/was the purpose of the US Constitution. Regrettably, you can actually see my previous point in action with all the people arguing to ignore one of the central tenants of the Constitution, that it is a set of limited delegated powers with all others denied to the Federal government. I suspect we could power the world just by hooking generators to the no doubt rapidly spinning bodies of the Founders at the way things have turned out.
“Senate directly elected?! Direct income taxes?!?!?! Federal government telling people what they can eat, smoke, drink, and more?! Government permission to own arms?!!??!?! What the hell did you guys allow to happen?!?!” — Founders, 2021, probably
@lain I call this situation "Proof of War". The obvious solution is world government, but all governments eventually collapse and a worldwide state collapse would be cataclysmic.
A partial solution is to have one country which is more powerful than most other countries in the world combined, but not more powerful than all, so it's hold on power is limited - which is essentially what we have now.
@lain In principle I agree, but as long as there is some other guy with an army ready to fund it by plundering, the best we can do is pool our resources and fund one to keep them at bay.
About M1, I fully agree, I think the state should be funded by taxation of risk-free investments, particularly land. Risk-free investments create a dull and idle elite who live off the productive effort of others without contributing anything, even clever allocation of resources.
@cjd i disagree, such an army should be defunded. there's no need for the state even for military protection.still, i don't see how funding military depends on control of a central bank. you can still get the money from your citizens, you just need to tax it explicitly instead of hiding it in M1.
@lain Well, everything is somehow under the umbrella of the state, in fact a lot of the relatively peaceful world we live in today exists under the umbrella of the US.Armies don't pay for themselves, or, to be more exact, they do, and that's the problem.
An overwhelmingly powerful army which swears allegiance to an impartial court system which, in turn, swears allegiance to a constitutional democracy, is a Good Thing which ought not be defunded... How to best fund is a hard question though.
@cjd either way, making money really decentralized and taking the control of it away from the states (or at least making it much harder) should be a big plus for everyone who's not a state.
@lain You're probably right, but I'm not sure a fixed money supply is really the most efficient way to run a country. At a geopolitical level the world is a rough place, and you're either dedicating every available resource to military/economic/cultural domination or someone else is...
@lain@cjd@wolfie don't really mean that. there's a difference between "subjugate an entire country/peoplegroup that hates you without just murdering them all" and "roving band that does drive-by looting"is personal-level tech different enough now from nomad days to do anything about that? and if it is, what happens then? what happens when any given individual can trivially murder any otherseeing some of that here with the gun suicides/homicides, and "less state" seems to exacerbate it (mexico/brazil
@shmibs@cjd@wolfie in vietnam a group of locals hiding in the woods doing guerilla tactics already won against the biggest military on the planet. the soviets and the US both lost in afghanistan. big state armies aren't as efficient as they pretend to be.
@lain@cjd@wolfie rather than "no state", this sounds like "state and populace who only do things that i, personally, approve of"?thinking average-person would be upset about violence rather than pretending not to see it. police here regularly beat/maim/kill and are popular with most citizensand many of them actually watch live-recorded tv shows about itstores here regularly have violent encounters to stop suspected criminal stuff, and nobody caresdecentralised social-credit grapevine will inevitably become that discussion had with moon yesterday, twins being conflated with one another and places thinking i don't exist, errors that appear somewhere and propagatehave essentially what he's talking about right now with sex-offender list here, and it hurts lots of people pointlessly (sharing pictures with your boyfriend when you're both under 18 etc, not even mentioning false convictions)and vigilante mob revenge-murder would not disappear either, natural human behaviour that has to be actively held in check. people generally do "i hate you" rather than "dispassionate assessment"where "revenge" is often for things like "you said the wrong words" or "you look funny"awful pointless unproductive us prisons are popular with citizens, because "yeeeeeh, hurt that guy!" is what people care aboutand also monopolies for some reason choosing to self-regulate rather than just suppressing all competition as they do now?and this thinking women would all rather go to some company for money rather than say something... wat?like thinking that's what you want after someone rapes you?
@lain@cjd@wolfie sorry, just it feels like "never talked to a woman before" or "never met someone who works at walmart"like thinking privatised schooling would somehow be amazing rather than indoctrinate-children-into-parents'-favourite-cult, needs to talk to someone who's been homeschooled here
@admin podcast person was implying that wouldn't happen, thoughsub-cults make overall social cohesion and agreements impossible, and, without those, the world that was being described falls apartprivatised schooling bolsters sub-cults (though they would exist regardless, and, with no oversight, eating up significantly more than the semi-checked mormons/evangelicals/scientologists/happy scientists etc do today
Indoctrination is a synonym for teaching. The alternative to family cult is state cult.People disagree about things. This is okay. I know it’s difficult to accept that people aren’t all uniform automatons, but that’s actually how we were doing things before culture and family died. It was working p. well for the 700 years of European history.