No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.
The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.
If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you’re gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you’re probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.
If the other 99-98 other writers don’t have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!
And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.
The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it’s transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.
Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.
The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that’s the case, then it’s no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.
That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.
Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.
Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes
If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers
Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.
From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense.
That’s a fine opinion to hold.
There were no CEOs nor governments.
There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?
the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies
Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.
because that is the most efficient way.
Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?
The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force.
I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.
All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.
We’re not talking about capitalism. IDK where you’re getting that from.
I’m reading your argument as “the current system sucks, so this other that I propose is obviously better”.
Yes, you can keep mixing water and oil. That’s the point of my argument. But to do that, you need someone to enforce anarchy. But when you have someone enforcing a political system, you no longer have anarchy. Since that dude/organization is clearly above others, forming a hierarchy.
No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.
The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.
If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you’re gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you’re probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.
If the other 99-98 other writers don’t have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!
And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.
The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it’s transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.
Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.
The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that’s the case, then it’s no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.
Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.
Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm
You don’t need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.
Hierarchy is not when you are convinced someone is wise lol. Please read a book
That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.
Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes
Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.
That’s a fine opinion to hold.
There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?
Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.
Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?
I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.
All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.
We’re not talking about capitalism. IDK where you’re getting that from.
I’m reading your argument as “the current system sucks, so this other that I propose is obviously better”.
Yes, you can keep mixing water and oil. That’s the point of my argument. But to do that, you need someone to enforce anarchy. But when you have someone enforcing a political system, you no longer have anarchy. Since that dude/organization is clearly above others, forming a hierarchy.