Government, or the lack thereof

@Savage: You're assuming everybody in this society would think the same way, and anybody who steps out of line would be killed. That's just as bad if not maybe just a teeny tiny bit worse than the government telling me I can't smoke in a restaraunt.

edited 28th Feb '11 3:40:19 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Sounds to me like your governmental model is impractical given human nature as it stands, then.

Oh, god Savage. Its like reading bad fan fiction. Except it is about humanity... People don't work that way.

@Joe: If by "stepping out of line" you mean "forcing others to do stuff against their will" then yes, I think shooting the infractor would be a good idea.

Why would it be worse than the current system? You'd be only barred from forcing others to do stuff. Compared to all the things you're not allowed to do right now, you'd be dramatically freer.

edited 28th Feb '11 3:46:24 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Small, clinical, and precise, with healthcare prioritised and schooling a close second. And with a definite emphasis on local level government. People should focus on local councils more; its your local councillors who implement decisions. I'm not a fan of bureaucracy and like things to be as smooth and efficient... and cheap, as possible, so that front-line services get the greatest proportion of the money spent as possible. We need more of a culture of being able to provide money to people in need directly.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

I think I took some of these from the taxes thread, but they fit better here.

If they're not competant, they will lose. And then you'll be under the bootheel of some thug worse than any narcotic cop you've ever met. Or dead, of course.

I point at how many people love Desperate Housewives as a counter-argument. Most people seem to love petty squabbles, or at least love watching them.

I was just thinking that earlier. Most of the places with a government willing to use authority evenly are utter shitholes.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Oh, my apologies for misunderstanding you. I disagree, but will continue this in the next few segments. The problem here is where you define the leader's business. If we were to come into a tribe-esque thing, the fact is that if any member of the group disagrees with the leader, there's a good chance that the leader will die (as all of them have guns). Ergo, the leader who, say, only gives his thugs guns when he wants them to attack someone (and practices discipline) is more likely to survive and to continue leading his group.

And presuming that this leadership is effective, that group will expand and subjugate others, thus spreading the rule elsewhere. And if this rule expands, it gets more effective, as larger groups are almost always stronger.

They think that's stupid, and shoot the person suggesting this.

Thus, the dam does not get built. Thus, negative consequences which hurt the group's survival are inflicted upon that group, which damage that group's chance of survival. A group with a strong leader would build the dam and while they may hate them for it (and may depose this ruler), the fact remains that this group has a greater chance of surviving than the leaderless group. Thus, this group may continue existing, whereas the leaderless group perishes. Therefore, groups with leaders come to dominate and become plentiful.

Thing is, without the consistent enforcement afforded by government, even that edict would end up being broken quite often. Cultural taboos just aren't enough to stop people from doing things, as history has demonstrated over and over again.

That, and a capable leader doesn't just force you to do things, but convinces you that doing things on his behalf would be beneficial to you.

edited 28th Feb '11 3:51:38 PM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

Wow. That was rude. Thumped.

"Hey Bob, why don't you go farm so the family doesn't starve to death?"

"Don't feel like it, Jeff."

"Listen up you punk, I'm tired of your mom stuffing your fat face for doing nothing while the rest of us get sunburned picking food for your dinner. We stopped giving her food for you so you'd be forced to work, but now she's giving you her share."

"Still not in the mood Jeff."

"You little... GET OUT THERE AND WORK OR I'LL SH-"

BANG!

"Bob? Why'd you shoot Jeff?"

"He was telling me what to do Mom!"

"That bastard! Good work!"

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Since I'm not forcing them to do anything, odds are they ignore my whining at worst, and I get known as "the Dam Nut", but nothing else happens.

edited 28th Feb '11 3:53:42 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@Savage Heathen: What's stopping the local warlord from coming up to me and saying "Hey, there's some crazy guy who thinks I should be shot because I'm in charge; I'll give you 50 gallons of fuel if you take him out." Then my spotter and I making our way to your camp to off you?

Sooner or later people with guns or like minds will band together; parties make groups, groups make clans, clans make tribes...ect. Pretty soon we'll have gov in one form or another.

... and then the entire village gets washed away by a flood next spring.

There are worse things out there than being forced to do something you don't want to do.

What's precedent ever done for us?

"No government" becomes "Lots of small authoritarian government" fast.

edited 28th Feb '11 3:55:40 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

I've gotta admit, Iaculus makes a damn good point.

Perhaps it wouldn't be the most efficient of systems.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:00:08 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

We should kill the markup, it's instituting rules with authority!

edited 28th Feb '11 3:57:08 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Good leadership qualities, that man.

Once you have groups, you get leaders. If two people work together, they may each still greatly respect another's viewpoint. At twenty, it's still worth trying to hear everyone's viewpoint and making a plan from that. At two-hundred, the beast is crippled by indecision. Whether to attack an enemy tribe or defend your own land, the group splits and fractures, dissolving into separate groups.

To avert this and stay with the safest (i.e. largest) number of people, the group chooses a leader (or group of leaders) to choose for them. Rapid decisions allow the group to adapt and survive. Groups driven by selfish individuals shatter once arguments start. Ergo, the group is driven by a handful of altruistic individuals instead.

... I'm repeating myself a lot. "Thus" and "ergo" everywhere.

If I remember correctly humans can still use informal command hierarchies at numbers at 200 and below. IT is about at 250 that you need to implement a formal hierarchy.

Oh, is that so? I was just grabbing numbers out of the air, so feel free to mentally change it to "three/thirty/three hundred" or what-have-you.

Without a formally designated leader it's hard to get 6 people to work effectively and impossible for 10.

At least in my personal expirence.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I've seen groups of up to 120 people cooperate effectively without any sort of formal leadership at all.

I'm not sure a group of 500 could make it. Still, there is wide room between "we've sort of agreed you're responsible to do X and we'll cooperate with you to do X", which might be entirely appropriate in a large group, and "you can use violence to punish noncompliance", which is obviously not OK.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:16:43 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But I can have a group of three-hundred-and-sixty with a leader (or a conglomeration of groups with several "sub-leaders", and a united leader above them). If we presume equal strength in men, the leader-group/-conglomerate wins.

And whats preventing foreign nations from just going "OH LOOK A BUNCH OF WEAK AND TINY INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES, OM NOM NOM" ?

What were these 120 people doing? Moving a ball from one end of a field to the other?

I'm talking about actual projects getting done. Paths getting mulched, presentations being completed. Even if there wasn't an over all leader, you can bet that there were folks who delegated responsiblity within small groups.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

@Thorn: That's a valid criticism. It's also something that has been debated forever in anarchist circles.

An answer that fits the problem perfectly is above my paygrade .

@Joe: Organizing a concert at a punk house or a rave or staging a protest, for example. There are also worker-owned and worker-run cooperatives, typically small shops.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:24:34 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.