Government Shut Down

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.

One of biggest changes in mindset I've had over the past 6 years is my switch of preference from a highly idealistic socio-economic setup to a more pragmatic robust society. This is due to the simple fact that social and economic interactions are HIGHLY complex and there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account.

This is reason why the highly idealistic communist system failed and will always fail. It makes an assumption that everyone will readily embrace the values of the system. However, this has always turned out to be untrue and some bastardized form of "communism" was always the result. Leftists keep on saying that the theory needed to be refined but I'm convinced that it just too fragile of an idea to realistically be implemented. The same goes for libertarianism in my opinion.

Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model. However, history almost always shows - except for nomadic societies - that the decentralized city-state model tends to centralize through war due to human ambition. Beyond that, our current technology would force these "proxies" to cooperate at levels unheard of throughout human history. The best guide to how your "proxy society" would work is to observe how our current decentralized state model works on a global level, aka the UN.

"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."

Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.

See above. The decentralized model has historically only worked for nomadic or pre-agricultural societies. Our current technology requires a high level of planning and cooperation and experience shows us that only a centralized state is really capable of doing this (and they are not even that good at it). When you get multiple actors, each with their own interests, all cooperation goes to shit.

[henry quirk]

"Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't..."

Of course they can...they choose not to.

The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.

The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?

The answer to that question is the answer to "what would prevent that from happening in (my) *system?"









*and: I don't have a system...the word you're looking for is 'transaction'...A and Z transact, each gettin' what each needs from the other...there's gonna be an exchange one way or another, by way of violence or by way of trade...civillization is about 'trade'...it gets ruined when folks unable or unwilling to transact get all huffy and begin goin' on and on about inequities and whatnot...it's friggin' envy, pure and simple (you have more than me...I can't get what you have on my own, so me and my tribe are gonna take what you have)

[henry quirk]

"Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model."

The current system is based on a similar assumption: that folks will willingly live and work within a centrally planned economy and nation. For those that won't (will not readily embrace the values of the system) there is jail and/or death.

Make no mistake: I got no illusions that americans will ever take the route of self-sufficiency...the population is far too domesticated for that...but, as toad says up thread, "it sure is nice to dream".

No I expect things to tick along in the U.S. (and globally) as they have for a long time now.

#

So, PH, I do get how it all works...your mistake, then, is thinkin' of my posts as advocacy instead of just musings.

Really, where (in this thread or in this forum) have you seen me advocate any changes? Sure, I play the gadfly now and again, but mostly, you'll find, I just say no, I ain't doin' 'that' when some bleedin' heart gets all righteous and says I really need to give a flip about starving old folks or freezing kids or beached whales or corporate greed or whatever the issue du jour happens to be.

#

"there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account"

Sure there is: the unrestrained market (not capitalism).