300 sats \ 3 replies \ @DiracDelta 16 Jun \ on: The Libertarian-to-Fascist Pipeline libertarian
"[under private defense] you essentially just have a might-makes-right society who can largely impose their will with impunity [...therefore government monopoly on violence is better]"
This is a logical fallacy. If one assumes that economically dominant players will form a threat to life, liberty, and property via might making right, then it would extend that a larger organization would be able to do so in a far more dangerous way, as governments today are orders of magnitude more dominant economically than the wealthiest individuals, and the percent of GDP that governments spend has been steadily climbing -- 36% in the US now.
If one imagines that this monopolize violence entity is able to capture the interests of some imagined common party, this is a failure to understand the nature of complex systems i.e. non-linear-dynamical systems. This goes beyond politics into pure math where it is clear that complex systems cannot be governed top down.
It is flawed to assert that governmental checks and balances are inferior to those which would exist among powerful individuals, and it is fairly obvious that if you have 10,000 powerful players, each one is going to be a lot more hesitant to "start shit."
Will assassinations become more prominent? Probably, but no Government will be able to protect you from being assassinated anyway. Just try to not be like me, constantly talking shit on the internet and no one will come after you, or just do so with proper opsec.
I suspect it will be at the scale of cities that we will see terms and conditions that provide a structure resembling something along the lines of what is considered governance today.
There are also likely to be geographically agnostic insurance services e.g. revenge killing as a subscription service, or something like that -- the insurer will be incentivized to keep you alive. Insurance companies will be extremely powerful.
reply
This really sounds a lot like the classic describe the status quo when saying why your alternative wouldn't work.
His description of Jim crow south is pretty flawed as well. The state enforced these rules. Of course the people held them but not all. Enough did to keep these laws in place. Those that went against them paid a social price as well as a legal price. Now we have to remember that slavery and these laws clearly violate the constitution. Yet they persisted. Its almost like culture is the real battlefront. If you live in a racist culture the state will be racist. Really bad arguments to me.
reply
Well the culture is eventually downstream of the technology. The industrial revolution guaranteed slavery would come to an end.
As I recently argued, it is clear that increasing technological advancement will have a tendency to reduce war, leaving fiat vs bitcoin impact aside. https://heaviside.substack.com/p/advancing-technology-disincentivizes
It would seem that "good" behavior is correlated to broad technological advancement and material wealth.
reply