Nation-states

[ecnarf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

 

"Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (say 50% plus one, or 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument.

 

This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."

 

Nation-states exist for resources, don't they?

 

If you had a bunch of small, local-run "governments" using direct democracy, there wouldn't be much to be said for foreign relations, and the ability to have resources such as oil imported would be severely hampered, if not near impossible.

 

Trade among small communities is impossible? Smaller communities can't form federations to enter into negotiations with other federations where geography prohibits direct trade?

I mean, trade among far-reaching communities would be impossible. Imagine if a small collection of countries has a high concentration of resources, such as oil. As it stands, there are about 200 some odd countries in the world, and therefore import oil, requiring trade relations, etc.

 

Now, imagine if we have 500 small, concentrated "countries" in the world. Not only would that complicate the distribution and purchasing of oil, but transport would be complicated by border crossing and landlocked areas that would require on communally built and operated railroads for importation. It's not impossible, but quite complicated.

[Bizud]

For starters, I recommend we stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. Second, yes, it is more complicated and less efficient. Democracy is also more complicated and less efficient than a dictatorship. More democratic forms of government are frequently less efficient.

[ecnarf]

For starters, I recommend we stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible. Second, yes, it is more complicated and less efficient. Democracy is also more complicated and less efficient than a dictatorship. More democratic forms of government are frequently less efficient.

I guess you've got me beat on that one.

 

;)

[therethere]

Anarchism, in the real sense, would not work. Humans are too greedy and primarily concerned with self-interest, as evidenced in nature. It would be impossible to make something as utopian as anarchism work.

 

The only way that something like that may be able to work is if control is broken down several levels to a very very small community (eg. a few families). And, seeing our dependence on government-regulated social services, I doubt that we will revert back to that state very soon.

[Dookas27018]

You can only have a nation/state if your country has a relatively homogenous population

[TheKwas]

Anarchism, in the real sense, would not work. Humans are too greedy and primarily concerned with self-interest, as evidenced in nature. It would be impossible to make something as utopian as anarchism work.

It's quite unbelievable how often I hear this arguement, that Anarchy is somehow "un-natural" and won't work because people will always try to gain status and power. Yet, I think the above statements might be a part of why anarchy COULD work.

 

If people are naturally greedy, they would want the best chances at a good outcome. Lets say that I have two pieces of cake behind my back, one is a massive piece that includes ice cream, strawberries, and a cherry on top, the other is barely one bite and lacks ice cream, strawberries and a cherry on top. Now if I said that I would give you and your friend a piece at compete random, meaning either one of you could get the big piece or the small piece, wouldn't it be natural, smart even, to make an agreement with your friend saying that whoever got what piece, you would divide it equally amoung you so that both of you will win and neither of you risk the chance of losing? By this method, you are making sure that you gain cake (status and power) no matter what the cards deal you, and thus it would be "natural" for you to take this path.

 

Now if we were to properly deminstrate what the odds are of recieving the "big piece" in modern capitalism, we would have to create more small pieces, a crapload of meduim size pieces, and have the big pieces to be entire cake factories that dictate your cake eating abilities.