Damus
mleku · 4d
people at village scale can actually mutually enforce the rules if they have the mind for it. there is very little scaling beyond that before it becomes an extraction lever. the belief it is impossibl...
StackSats.IO profile picture
The belief it’s impossible I’m afraid, is rooted in reality. Say we nuked Canberra tomorrow with parliament sitting. They’re all gone (praise god 🙏).

What happens the next day? Does everyone in Aus agree to live without authority because thankgod the parasites are gone?

Hell no. THAT isn’t going to happen. They’ll accept whomsoever is offering stability and continuity.

Someone is going to be in charge because that’s what normies need.

You and I don’t need that; normies do.

Until you can think like a normie midwit and plan for a midwit life, you won’t be able to understand reality.

A “monarchy” in which the top 10% are selected for and promoted and society is centred around is the best you can hope for. But we don’t have that. WWI destroyed the monarchies.

So you need to decide, what is your realistic best case?:

1. Continue the democratic status quo.
2. You, me, some Bitcoiner is the monarch.
3. Some powerful gang elects one of their own as monarch.

Because those are your realistic options. Someone is gonna be in charge; do you want it to be the current crop of parasites, you or your friends, or some mafia?

Choose and let me know.
1
mleku · 4d
the problem with all of your points is scale. anarchy only works on biologically legible scale. the human brain has limits on how many distinct people it can work with on a regular basis. the entire point i make is about the fact that you can't maintain fluent cooperation if you scale it up. to a s...