Well, I want to agree in the near-term. Social democracy seems to me like a decent path toward a relatively practical anarchy. And your suggestions are good social democratic proposals. But the old criticism from the anarchists still applies. Any time you install a "hard" organization, it becomes difficult to remove when it goes obsolete [⛧]. So, the emphasis should be on the observe/accept and fix, hearkening back to Strevens' "iron rule", I guess.
[⛧] ... deliberately avoiding the asymmetric power sugar the anarchists always, irritatingly, use. Its not really about power. It's about agility. But the power rhetoric provides a nice whistle for the disenfranchised, a way to manipulate them, leveraging their brand of individualism, different from the self-made man type, but no less nefarious. On 9/29/20 12:27 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Don't appeal to "soft" organizations like churches and charities to fix the > things that government leaves broken. That leaves power (to abuse) on the > table. Design it to _work_. Observe (or accept) the hard consequences of > rigid and incorrect systems and fix (or ignore) them. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
