Hmmm. Interesting point. But it's not just anarchy that it's putting into practice - I guess that depends upon your definition of anarchy :) - It's putting into practice any philosophy that is opposed to centralized control.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The only philosophy that is opposed to centralized control is anarchy.
Well, as a Classical Liberal, I see limits to anarchism - especially those that oppose the private ownership of property. I consider a state, with severe limits to what it can do, is useful and ultimately necessary (provided we're talking about a society of millions).
People make a compact (a social contract) where they say, in effect, "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
Do you think that perhaps the function of government could be replaced by open-source software?
All government? No. But some yes. And this is one of those things, like all computer systems, where we're going to have to start with small issues and work out the bugs there before moving on.
The issue is not in "can" we create such a system; the issue will be removing the power from politicians. They will object and will attempt to cause as much FUD as possible.
Artificial Neural Networks are already acting as consultants to JUDGES in bail and parole hearings.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a politician will very soon promise to manage the resources under their purview purely by evidence based, PROCRUSTEAN algorithms.
Well. Such a system certainly would ignore individual differences. It would have to be up to the appellate court to examine this.
We kind of have this now with red light cameras. The camera says you did a no-no and now the owner of the car is fined. 99+% of the time the camera is correct (assuming that it's programmed honestly) but a small percent of the time there would be an extenuating circumstance.
Good point. I think this happens right now all over the place.
The automated system only needs to be marginally "less-wrong" than the current system in order for it to be preferable.
The pandemic thing is already one of those things where people believe in mathematical models and projections.
Personally, I don't believe in DNA, I'm not even sure it "exists". At least not in the form that people like to use or think they can influence. Of course, to tamper grossly or crudely with living cells and then make it look as if you have accomplished something virtuoso, mice with ears and other things, that makes an impression on all those who believe in the godlikeness of human beings. And of course, tampering with and in humans definitely has consequences. But no one can say or know exactly which ones.
In the same way, there are also really funny mishaps in the prosecution of crimes with DNA. I'm afraid I've lost the example, but it's a nice absurdity.
Unfortunately, the key "problem" with the "pandemic" is NOT ENOUGH SCIENCE.
Every real scientist knows that the PCR test should never be used as a diagnostic tool.
Even the person who invented it explained that it should NEVER be used to diagnose.
Not to mention, there is a SHOCKING lack of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating the efficacy of paper masks and social distancing and mRNA "vaccines".
This entire fiasco is based on an old fashioned APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
So few people even know what SCIENCE actually is, they're willing to treat any "expert" that happens to be presented to them like a high holy priest who tells them if they pray really really really hard and wear the proper sacred amulet or head covering and injest the sacred sacrament they'll be blessed by god.
You've just described anarchy.
I wouldn't call John Locke, Montesquieu, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson anarchists - but all agreed with the above social contract.
The question then became putting into practice. And, as everything in real life, there are pre-existing conditions; there are people that disagree with you to an extreme that you may need to make compromises with. ... Or nothing get's done.
"don't kill your neighbor" is a pretty low bar.
How to enforce "don't kill your neighbor" is where they diverge.
Replying to: "don't kill your neighbor" is a pretty low bar.
It may be a low bar but it's an essential first step. Your neighbors are Jews, or Muslims, or Christians or the wrong sect of those religions therefore they're evil and must convert or die.
Let's add race, language and cultural difference to the mix and now ish gets even more complicated. Even in places where everyone "looked" the same different tribes would scar and brand themselves of "this" tribe in order to distinguish themselves from "those other" tribes.
So, I think that "don't kill your neighbor" is an essential first step.
We seem to agree on "don't kill your neighbor".
What are your views regarding enforcement mechanisms?