Morderator on Nostr: npub15th6y…a6nvx Well, first off, do you know what the police are? In essence, it's ...
npub15th6y0m8c79aq5qg2arvpw955jr4c5cvvvvkrxz70tnh4n282dzq2a6nvx (npub15th…6nvx) Well, first off, do you know what the police are? In essence, it's an organization, purpose of which is to investigate and enforce community rules. This is important, because not all in a community play by the community rules. For example, while rare, there are random murders. What sort community-led initiative would you suggest to handle those situations? And how is that not a new form of police?
Secondly, what's wrong with hierarchical structures? Are you saying we shouldn't have them? Why? The way I see it, is that they are very necessary in many cases. Take education, for example. Even a simple class room setting is a hierarchical situation. Teacher leads and students follow. If there isn't that sort of hierarchy, no one learns and nothing's gained. A good second example is projects. You have a project lead, and people under them. Project lead gives project direction, but doesn't have to know much about all parts of the project, nor know the details of each part of the project. Their job is different. And in project where there's no strong lead, it more often than not, goes nowhere.
Then we come to the question of, why do you think a decentralized community is any better with exploitation? My understanding is, that what anarcho-communists propose, is that rules are agreed upon the community, yes? Well, what do you do in the situation, where the community agrees that everyone outside of the community are worth less, and as such can be made slaves? This is what has happened all over the globe, in just about every civilization, so why wouldn't it happen with your ideal society?Do tell me if I'm wrong, and why.
People are often wrong and biased, and biases can go through entire communities. For example, racism is everywhere in rural small towns. And so, decentralized communities, I think, are no better than what we have now. It's an over correction, and I can see it perpetuating biases and bad ideas. I'm firmly of the opinion that the current structure needs major reforms, but the decision making power shouldn't be with politicians like it is now. It should be with experts. Not just one, but several, rotating committee of them, who can choose the best ways forward. Because they have the know how to get forward.
Secondly, what's wrong with hierarchical structures? Are you saying we shouldn't have them? Why? The way I see it, is that they are very necessary in many cases. Take education, for example. Even a simple class room setting is a hierarchical situation. Teacher leads and students follow. If there isn't that sort of hierarchy, no one learns and nothing's gained. A good second example is projects. You have a project lead, and people under them. Project lead gives project direction, but doesn't have to know much about all parts of the project, nor know the details of each part of the project. Their job is different. And in project where there's no strong lead, it more often than not, goes nowhere.
Then we come to the question of, why do you think a decentralized community is any better with exploitation? My understanding is, that what anarcho-communists propose, is that rules are agreed upon the community, yes? Well, what do you do in the situation, where the community agrees that everyone outside of the community are worth less, and as such can be made slaves? This is what has happened all over the globe, in just about every civilization, so why wouldn't it happen with your ideal society?Do tell me if I'm wrong, and why.
People are often wrong and biased, and biases can go through entire communities. For example, racism is everywhere in rural small towns. And so, decentralized communities, I think, are no better than what we have now. It's an over correction, and I can see it perpetuating biases and bad ideas. I'm firmly of the opinion that the current structure needs major reforms, but the decision making power shouldn't be with politicians like it is now. It should be with experts. Not just one, but several, rotating committee of them, who can choose the best ways forward. Because they have the know how to get forward.