Has there ever been a serious response to this theory?

Has there ever been a serious response to this theory?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

It seems that power naturally consolidates among a minority, that hierarchy is as inevitable in society as it is in so many other instances of reality.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If we can find out what causes power to consolidate like that we can act against that cause.

That's what I imagine the founding fathers had in mind.

What if it is something ridiculously simple, such as : all humans desire power, those with power have an easier time leveraging more power, hence oligarchies.

I mean you could tweak this and add some meritocratic points to it, but how could you really prevent an oligarchy in a case like that.

This is a hypothetical because I don't believe that's necessarily how society works but couldn't it just be an irremediable aspect of human life?

Well I think humans are born selfish. It's our natural state, so I think the danger of power-grabbing will always be there. It takes conscious effort from all people to act against their selfish nature for there to be any good.

How would you envision socially engineering societies to act that way? Religion?

the theory is true. you' asking for an example of an argument that denies fact?'

decentralized power is not power. it is chaos.

I'm asking if anyone has ever reasonably argued against it, I am not expecting they have but may as well ask

Power only consolidates among a minority when you give this minority the power to create and control money.
See early Roman Republic vs Late Roman Republic or Empire.

>how could you really prevent an oligarchy
>How would you envision socially engineering societies to act that way?

put computers in charge. algorithms can stay objective, humans can't.

that's stupid. not only does that not address the argument itself, the way you phrased it is incoherent.

power within a family is concentrated into the patriarchs in order to prtoect its assets and weild influence effectively. the larger a family grows, the more concentrated that power becomes. wealthy families met and formed the roman republic. as the scope of the roman republic expanded, the wealthiest and ost powerful of families needed to ehance their power in order to exercise that control

power in the early roman republic was disperse because the early roman republic literally did not have POWER. neither economic, nor to wage war, nor to fnance lucrative projects.

gb2 school

Power doesn't exist. To quote the normies "it's a social construct"

Tell me what is power? Telling others what to do? Why do they listen?

When you deconstruct power you see that it is actually a shadow on the wall. It appears much scarier than it really is.

Take for example the jewish bankers right now.

If we really wanted, we could easily overpower their 10 man security teams and kill them and their families. Yet we don't. Why?

You see there is no power, there is the perception. Change the perception, and the power shifts, or dissipates.

spooky. how old are you?

You actually can't. Because if you overpowered those guards and killed those bankers what would stop others from trying to take their place?

Look at the french revolution immediately after it happened. They got rid of the kings, and put up a system that they eventually over turned anyway and ended up using the guillotine on Robespierre. After all that they ended up with Napoleon.

>early roman republic literally did not have POWER
t. American historical education
The roman republic was the most powerful state of the world after they defeated Carthage and arguably even before that.
The Roman Empire did not grow much larger.
By the end of the Republic Rome was facing severe issues like accumulation of arable land in the hands of the rich relying on slave labor which lead to massive unemployment and the decrease of food produced on those lands. This directly lead to the Gracchus brothers and Caesar's civil war. This was indirectly caused by Rome's adoption of gold and silver as their money and laws which gave more power to the rich who already possessed those metals and the Generals who brought them back from war.
Newly issued money was basically concentrated to the rich.

Kill the new replacements.

The French Revolution was a jewish funded trick to get the Rothschilds in power. Mayer Rothschild got super rich on the bond buying scheme during the war.

Yes, the response that Arthur dooms his Round Table when he fills it. These groups, formal or informal, come together for a purpose -- as it appears at one time -- but the very aptness in one time becomes inappropriateness or tunnel vision or outdated in another time.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

that is why civilization has found ways to counter it

where the standard of living on earth is the highest is where power is most evenly distributed, which is scandinavia

There are egalitarian or near-egalitarian societies. That's how most humans worldwide lived until a millennium or so ago.

That's antisemitic.

>Tell me what is power? Telling others what to do? Why do they listen?

power is authority
the threat and use of violence to coerce

the pic you posted is not the EARLY roman republic.

the early roman republic was so weak that generals were FORCED to disband their armies before approaching anywhere naer the city itself. they had neither control over their own generals, nor control over a large population of their own citizenry. it was FAMOUSLY unstable, and its colonies were famously docile: e.g. hadrian's wall was a sheep taxing fence.

you think the definition of POWER is to allow a privately financed general march an army through gaul, make it to england, engage in tin trade for personal profit, and establish series of taxation points?

that's not power. that's trade.

the punic wars were an expression of power. and in order to do that, the republic had to let go of its decentralized structure. standing armies were raised, generals reigned in to serve the state, private fortunes of various types were more heavily taxed.

again, gb2 school

All western countries rely on American hegemony for the security of their borders though. It makes no sense to speak of Norway or Sweden as a self-contained state, they wouldn't exist without the other NATO countries, which taken as a whole evince extreme inequality

and those egalitarian societies do not have power of any sort. they live in mud huts in the jungle and their hightest technology is counting to three.

power is an expression of bureaucratic organization.

decentralized power is like trying to say icy fire.

>the pic you posted is not the EARLY roman republic.
It mostly is except for Caesar's conquests.
>the early roman republic was so weak that generals were FORCED to disband their armies before approaching anywhere naer the city itself.
This is somehow bad.
>you think the definition of POWER is to allow a privately financed general march an army through gaul, make it to england, engage in tin trade for personal profit, and establish series of taxation points?
??????
Caesar's conquests weren't only for his personal gain and this was already when the Roman system was basically broken.
>the punic wars were an expression of power. and in order to do that, the republic had to let go of its decentralized structure. standing armies were raised, generals reigned in to serve the state, private fortunes of various types were more heavily taxed.
So the Republic was strong during the punic wars?
Early roman republic ended after the 2nd punic war.
The wars and the influx of precious metals from conquered Carthage broke it.

>There are egalitarian or near-egalitarian societies.
False. There were societies with communal property but they were not egalitarian. The chief hunter and/or witch doctor were the boss, get on their bad side you get sacrificed or worse, ostracised.

the early roman republic didn't even encompass half of modern italy

>bad
I never said it was bad. but it was a fucking ridiculous point of weakness. one which would come back to kick them in the ass. it kicked them in the ass because it was a weakness. because it WASNT strong.

oh, and your assertion it was the strongest state of the era is fucking ridiculous. what the fuck do they do to your heads in leafland?

>rome is powerful
>rome is already broken
"broken" accordingto your ideological system. rome was at the peak of it strength. it was strong because it was no longer a decentralized mess

>punic war
yeah I'd say that's around when the transition was made

red herring

Power is peace
The promise and use of profit to marginalize

>oh, and your assertion it was the strongest state of the era is fucking ridiculous. what the fuck do they do to your heads in leafland?
Ok tell me what was the strongest state during that time period? Carthage?
>"broken" accordingto your ideological system. rome was at the peak of it strength. it was strong because it was no longer a decentralized mess
Broken as in it stopped being a state that had its citizens best interest at heart.
Which is why the people were ready to accept Caesar who was a populist and introduced land reforms that redistributed land to the poor. The concentration of wealth and power led directly to the civil war. Caesar wouldn't have had the support he needed if the people believed in the state.

Power consolidates because power is the ability to consolidate power.

the strongest state at the time was china, who occupied nearly all of its modern boundaries except for the southwest

even india occupied the entirety of the subcontinent.

rome was never a great empire in terms of territory or power. but they did invent rule of law. but that's not the same as power.

rome was the size of a SMALL chinese province from the same time period

>human rights
fucking hell. go cry on tumblr. we're talking about historical facts, not your feelings.

power consolidates because without the power to consolidate, power dissipates. if power dissipates, it does not exist. hence all power consolidates.

there is no such thing as decentralized power. there is simply a situation in which the conflict has not yet come to a head.

>Power is peace

it can be

>The promise and use of profit to marginalize

same

>power to consolidate, power dissipates.

not
not necessarily
an equilibrium is entirely possible and has been realized before and currently in many places

>the strongest state at the time was china, who occupied nearly all of its modern boundaries except for the southwest
>even india occupied the entirety of the subcontinent.
Ok the strongest western state.
>rome was never a great empire in terms of territory or power. but they did invent rule of law. but that's not the same as power.
But it was.
>fucking hell. go cry on tumblr. we're talking about historical facts, not your feelings.

>Quality of life is a feeling
>Corruption is a feeling
>Everything except territory and power is a feeling
Would you prefer to live in the USSR or Canada during the cold war?

equilibriums develop from enforced threats, though. an example is the prisoner's dilemma type situations. cooperation results because if the person does not cooperate, the other party has the ability punish/kill them.

the equilibrium state is not "dissipated power" the equilibrium state results from both parties enforcing their needs on the other, continuously,and unendingly. this prediction of the future enforcement of power leads to our ability to predict what they will do. because the needs of power never end.

>strongest western state
not a small distinction

>quality of life
we were talking about power. the entire thread is about power.

in world terms, rome as, and always WILL be weak. rome was unstable, short lived, small, and didn't advance technology.

your assertion that they enhanced quality of life has no basis, and you're ating like a retard.

power is centralized. rome was POOR at centralizing power. they were a weak state, historically.

none of your bullshit, from insulting me for being an american, or fucking drawing stupid parallels to the cold war, changes the fact that you're stupid, and wrong

Then the programmers are in charge.

>we were talking about power. the entire thread is about power.
The thread is about how power operates within a state and how it affects the state itself.
Oligarchies and corruption are bad for the long term stability and the overall happiness of the citizens of the state.
>in world terms, rome as, and always WILL be weak. rome was unstable, short lived, small, and didn't advance technology.
>Existed for more than a thousand years
>Controlled a large part of europe
>Had advanced roads, bridges, aqueducts
>Created the legal system that we base ours on
Weak, unstable, shortlived, small and didn't have advanced techonology.
>your assertion that they enhanced quality of life has no basis, and you're ating like a retard.
But it does. Read my posts.
>none of your bullshit, from insulting me for being an american, or fucking drawing stupid parallels to the cold war, changes the fact that you're stupid, and wrong
wewlad

It's fucking called biology, so no

rome didn't exist in the form that you advocate as "powerful" for 1k years. in fact, the form you think is best is the SHORTEST lived aspect of roman civilization.

are you retarded?

Seems to be a structural reality of large, complex organizations and societies.

Anyone got interesting reading on this? I've read Moldbug but not much more than that

shut your mouth

...

Not society, civilization.
The choice is between egalitarianism and civilization.

I'm replying to your "in world terms, rome as, and always WILL be weak. rome was unstable, short lived, small, and didn't advance technology." friend.

having read moldbug puts you ahead of the rest

you could go several directions with this

there's the HBD direction which would explain monkey politics. nick land writes interesting stuff about that, but the neoreactionary direction and neurology/evopsych would be one direction

if you're interested in oligarchical systems themselves, you could read organizational psychology as the management profession, or in terms of bureaucratic systems. weber would be the "canon" but there is honestly newer and better materials in those terms. scott adams writes some entertaining stuff on it. you could also start with th gervais principle for a quick take, or just dive straight into the field as a profession. aim for the most cynical of materials, in that case.

broader historical knowledge also tends to underpin the majority of it. some of this shit, such as "democracy does not work" is a well documented historical fact.

the problem with modern people is that we're quite functionally illiterate.

and what I'm telling you, as you discuss the forms of stable power, is that the form of power YOU think is good was teh shortest, weakest, and least stable period of rome.

you seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

False. In an egalitarian society like that of the Khoisan, Inuit, or various communes in modern countries, the little power there is belongs usually to the senior members of a group or the most experienced. Still, they don't usually rule with an iron fist. Decision making is group oriented.

the witch doctors in khoisan and african hunter tribes generally have the power to prescribe execution for imagined crimes

just because the leader doesn't have the effective power to sentence a person to death, because the offended individual must carry out the sentence himself, does not mean they aren't heirarchichal.

look at what happens to witches in the CURRENT DAY papua new guinea.

just wanted to tie it back to the topic. these groups have no POWER

~400 years is not short.
Growing from a single city to the most powerful state in the region is not weak or unstable.

the decentralized period of the roman republic did not last 400 years. it lasted maybe 150 years at the most. which in world terms is rather unstable, and n terms of the scope of territory it occupied, taxes levied, and enemies faced, it WAS weak

you're trying to make the argument that decentralization of power leads to a MORE powerful civ, but your example is a civ that was shorter lived, smaller, faced smaller enemies who were LARGER threats, and was less stable and less wealthy than the counterexamples of centralized power.

how old are you?

Since when was the opposite of centralized power, chaos? Anarchy perhaps, but not chaos.

There are all sorts of self-organizing systems found throughout nature

Persuasion, coercion, and deception. These are the foundations of power.

Money allows persuasion, guns allow coercion, and media (the control of information) allows deception.

I've read a little bit about hbd from Steve Sailer and I'm starting to check out Razib Khan (although I'm nowhere near technically fluent enough to have a good grasp of it yet).

I was actually more interested in the (I hate to say it since I think it's a stupid phrase) redpilled/cynical interpretations of politics along the lines of Machiavelli, Bertrand de Jouvenal, C Wright Mills, and James Burnham. I'm not sure how much that overlaps with more specific readings of organizational psychology, but I'll look into it considering the underlying mechanisms are probably similar.

I appreciate the help user

anarchy IS chaos though.

this goes back to the founding of the white race. the word aryan, as it appears in all indo-aryan languages, refers to our ancestors in the steppes north of the caucasus mountains who were farmers in some vague area we aren't sure of, but it seems likely to have been centered in teh ukraine, one of the most fertile areas on the planet. the aryans were the branch of our ancestors without horses, who farmed. when warhose technology was brought to them by warlike nomads, likely hte ancestors to modern russians, we fled westward as the icecaps melted.

that was anarchy, that was chaos. centralized government could have prevented our race from preying upon itself via the power of horses. but no one could prevent it, so it happened anyway.

our self-domesticated ancestors who then settled in western europe continued to self-domesticate, isolated from horse raiders by mountains and icecaps, which is the only instance of this happening in the entire WORLD (although the chinese are similar in circumstance.)

anarchy is chaos. western europeans are ALMOST capable of making this not the case. but we aren't there yet for the reasons of moral and economic calculus. higher levels of genetic quality allow for LESS structure, but we are not perfect, and structure is still necessary.

hey man, whatever floats your boat. by even entertaining this type of material I'd entertain the thought you're at least in the top 2% of people in terms of capacity for analytical though.

most people simply CANNOT understand these things. it's as mystifying to them as advanced math. it's literally the point for them where words begin to break down and become undecipherable symbols.

machiavelli is more of a quaint work. de jouvenal is a giant in this field. burnham and mills are fucking communists, and I don't recommend them at all, unless you're looking for verbal sleight of hands you can use to damage humanity's collective intelligence.

modern organizational psych basically revolves around organizing incentives and or incentive structures. for the majority of the field, as it is focused on the workplace, it focuses on sites of predation in the workplace, including parasitism masking itself as positive thinking/management, or predation in the roles of access to management roles and the like, or parasitism in information dissemination

uh, basically these fields tie into everything else in existence very intricately.

as it now exists, there is a subfield for incentive structures in
1. american physics
2. finance
3. public grant process
ad infinitum. they're all related to some degree or another

they're also all highly related to new discoveries we're making in terms fo genetic structures of human populations, new discoveries in neurology and the way the brain processes stimuli and the inflexibility of human brains

there's a lot of interesting overlap in terms of anthropology, primate ethology when it comes to the economic incentives I mentioned earlier too.

if it wasn't all illegal to basically say any of this, there might be a more convenient starting point. it seems you understand there isn't, so I can just do my best to refer you to individual authors whose focus is in a particular subfield

Anarchy is a description of a political system

Chaos is a descriptive word applicable to systems in general.

I would further define anarchy to refer to a lack of centralized coercive power. That is the definition of the 'archon', you know, Hobbes' Leviathan. There is nothing about the concept of anarchy that precludes the centralization of the other two foundations of power, namely persuasion, and deception.

What I would say is that all chaotic political situations systems are also probably anarchic, but that doesn't mean that all anarchic systems are necessarily chaotic.

I know what you're saying, and I think you know what I'm saying also, but I just wanted to establish that chaos and anarchy are not synonymous concepts, nor do I believe that your example demonstrates them to be inextricably connected.

Your example seems to assume that racial nationalism is some sort of self evident value. This sort of thing only makes sense when you have enough resources so that you're not locked in a zero sum struggle for survival among other members of your race.

Those ancient aryans were competing against each other and against nature to eke out an austere livelihood. Just because they shared genetic material didn't automatically put them on the same team.

Think of it like concentric circles: when there are lots of resources, like today, we have the luxury of identifying with the broadest 'in-group' circle, which, for many of us, would be the idea of an aryan race.

The scarcer resources become, however, the smaller that circle becomes, from race, to nation, to tribe, to family, and even down to the single individual.

Anyway, I digress, I don't believe that a lack of centralized coercive power inevitably results in social chaos. We don't view the other 'currents' of power, like money and information, as being dependent on centralization for their efficacy, so why would coercion be any different?

a monopoly on persuasion and deception is not enough to hold a system together on its own. america is probably a good example of this. we acually lack military dominatin of our own people, the entire system is held up by persuading and decieving people that niggers are human. but none of it is workable. in the absence of military domination, things descend into chaos because nothing works.

you're right that anarchy and chaos describe different things, and the way you've laid out the distinction is clear and true. but anarchic systems are functionally chaotic, and probably necessarily so below a genetic threshold that we have not yet surpassed.

>zero sum struggle
the thing is, though, and we see this plenty, is that some games are recursive and some aren't. games that repeat are ALWAYS zero sum because the goal always becomes to REPEAT play MORE than the other actors. this is the entry point for parasitism.

so, in a single action game it makes sense for an agent to NOT kill or punish a parasite, because a single agent can get a higher payout by allowing the parasite to exist. however, in repeated games, when the parasite grows as a result of the strategy, eventually, the parasitic population or behavior crowds out the hosts ability to survive. thus, short term payouts may not SEEM zero sum, when they are in fact, zero sum over a time scale.

racial nationalism is evidence oft his in action. my life, MY life is indeed much more pleasant without a race war. however, when the blacks and mexicans continue to multiply, at some point, they take over. WHEN they take over, they will NOT be nice to us just because we were nice. so in the end, racial politics ARE zero sum.

this behavior appears in the STOCK MARKET, it appears in GRADE DEFLATION, it appears EVERYWHERE. this isn't some sort of unique thing that can be corrected with the correct policy. it's the basis of human cognition.

the struggle for survival NEVER ended

I'm not sure you can argue against it. The whole point of organizations, regardless of type, is to delegate power from the many individuals to a few decision makers in the name of efficiency. That's the whole point of an organization. So yes, there will always be people with more power than others.

must be why all the jews call me Master.

It's inevitable but the solution is to try and broaden as much as possible the benefits and perks of the oligarchy.

On the topic of corruption in the Arab/Afghan world they have a different understanding of it than we do. We consider nepotism to be corruption, while they consider a LACK of nepotism to be corruption. If you are in power and you do not share and diffuse the goodies that you can earn from that place of power among your family, extended family, tribe and clan, you are corrupt in their eyes.

So what you want to do is have a system where the oligarchs are encouraged to have the interests and wellbeing of the proletariats in mind. Speaking of the Roman metaphors that is what the Republican and early Imperial period was like. Roman culture then was built on the notion of the patron-client relationship and the idea of a kind of nobleese oblige and reciprocal support of the richer elite to the commoner who has a relationship to them of slave or freedman or just a worker or whatever on their behalf.

Little surprise but globalization utterly ravages and destroys that intimate relationship and shared interests of the oligarch and the proletariat. The proletariat becomes an easily tradable commodity whose value is the same as a third worlder but whose interests are more taxing than the third worlder.

Proper Oligarch will have some interest in the wellbeing of his countryman because of either nationalism or ethnic solidarity, a desire to not lose his head to class-revolution, or a culture of nobleese-oblige.

The Iron Law actually isn't a law nor will it be true. Technology doesn't have a nation and as such, as humans evolve to be more wise and see that a focus on wisdom is greater at making people survive then a focus on survival, you will see "peer to peer" technology ultimately getting rid of the need for any and all politicians world wide. This won't happen for another 250 years when the cycle repeats itself "with" all the technology we have today of an empire sized collapse. When it does, oligarchy will be unnecessary and you will see the world in a state of anarcho capitalism, permanently. The person who made this law obviously follows the ideology of a God or viceroy.

I like your post but I'm nto sure the solution is to broaden the perks and benefits of the oligarchy

that distorts the incentives to become an oligarch, to gain a legal sense of privilege, and decreases the incentive that to become an oligarch, you need to be relatively intelligent

one grants power to smart people, one grants power to legal categories.

I'd actually argue that the system we have right now is your proposed solution. oligarchs do have broad powers and benefits. and it's the fact that they have these things by benefit of their legal category, RATHER THAN the fact that they've earned it that is particularly destructive about the system

what is an american oligarch? a movie producer that produces movies about 80 iq retards running around with cocaine and guns, that glorifies and grants status to niggers and race mixers? he has legal protection from the consequences of his actions because he's an oligarch, thus the source of his power become dis-civilizational.

a contrasting example might be japan or china, where a movie oligarch would be forced to make movies that hold chastity highly and mostly denounce crime, bringing high status to civilized people. his success as an oligarch flows from his support of civilization, his benefits derive from the fact that he supports civilization. if he made a movie about nigers and guns, he'd lose his status.

his status is no less secure, so long as he supports civilization

again, incentives have to align. creating a legal category of oligarch that is immune just creates the incentives for a proxy army of niggers and drug dealers.

You seem to conflate the state with the society, when they're two separate concepts as well, which might be why you're convinced of an anarchic state leading to a chaotic society.

It is the state that relies on the monopolization of power, not the orderly society, which is simply the organic network of human relationships within certain meaningful boundaries, (ie shared language, economy, etc, depending on your scope)

The state would definitely be chaotic without some centralization of power, because that is literally what a state is. Now, the classical liberal idea is that some degree of power monopolization is a necessary evil, but that you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns, in that the continued strengthening of the state eventually stops yielding a concurrent degree of social order.

If you look at anarchy and chaos as existing on spectra, in my mind, total dispersion of coercive power, aka a stateless society, would indeed result in chaos. But because of the law of diminishing returns that I believe is at work here, all you want is a very minimal state to get the best effect on social order. This is why the founding fathers deliberately made sure that the coercive, persuasive and deceptive elements of power were as decentralized as possible, through the rights to arms, speech and property.

The American state definitely relies on this monopolization of power, but this isn't done to preserve the social order across the entire country, it is done to ensure the continuation of the state itself.

If you deleted the US government in an instant, there would be a period of turbulence, followed by a return to equilibrium as the organic society does what it always does, that is, it spontaneously self-organizes.

We'd watch on as the nigger areas turn into africa, the spic areas turn into mexico. the white areas would be much the same in terms of social order, precluding extreme scarcity.

> Humans evolve to be wiser
> Technology will save us all

I remember being this naive. It was a happy time.

(cont)
My point about the zero sum struggle was that whites are no longer locked into this with eachother, that's why we can have things like white solidarity in the modern age, whereas human universal solidarity can't exist because there are too many parasitic actors. See: niggers.

I agree 300% that racial politics are zero sum. That's the main hypothesis behind white nationalism i suppose.

What you wrote about recursive game theory re: parasitism is very interesting. I don't think my brain has grasped it fully though, but that's something i'm going to be think about now.

Sounds like you aren't very wise.

Pay attention to a simple word in the process of human evolution. "Justice".

The less justice there is, the closer humans are to evolving again and the closer empires are to collapsing. Technology has no nation and stays around even after nations fall, unless an EMP so powerful that it just doesn't stop for generations and is global, goes off.

scope and extent of state power is a separate issue from the uncompromisability of state power

I think that where and when the state exists, it needs to be absolute with zero competition. if you open up a hole for competition, you have civil war.

that doesn't mean the government needs to be involved in more than road construction and the army. I never said that. in fact, the larger the state grows, I think, the more inherent compromises in sovereignty become inevitable.

I'm a big fan of the singapore model. if you speak out against the government, you will get thrown into a secret prison. if there is a murderer, they hang him publicly, and send his family a bil for the rope. they cannot be opposed in ANY of this. ifyou try not to pay the bill for the rope, YOU might be next.

but the government doesn't try to tax what doesn't need t obe taxed. the government doesnt run most ofthe schools, etc. the government is very hands off. being hands off about 99% of commerce doesn't make it LESS centralized.

centralized governments tend to also micrmanage economies and people, but it's not inevitable. my only argument is that if it ISNT centralized, it's not a government, because it can't exercise power.

I'm also not saying white areas would be absolute chaos without a government. we've evolved. but government creates a higher level of order upon which we depend for modern civilization. we can't maintain that on the decentralized level that the anglo ethno-nation exists. the government is necessary.

we are locked into it though. that's why SJWs exist. they want to be BETTER than you. they've found a way to marginalize your voice, and outlaw your speech and way of life.

they are the parasite in the system. THEY are the reason why we're still trapped in a war for suvival. because even if we're more evolved, we're not perfect. even if we killed every SJW alive, there would be more next generation. that's a struggle for survival

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game

you're very analytical for someone who hasn't read about repeated games. tis is just a starting point.

You don't work around it, you embrace it.
We're designed to be hierarchical, the problem is that power inevitably goes into the hands of the incompetent, and too much power in the hands of the incompetent can have irrevocable consequences.

The question isn't, "How do we avoid the consolidation of power within a minority?", it's "How do we ensure that the minority who wields power always does so in the most competent fashion and for the benefit of the whole?"

My own thoughts:
First, we need to tie the power of the minority to the well-being of the group. If the group fares well, the minority fares well. If the group dies, the minority dies.

Second, we must still decentralize a certain element of power amongst the group such that they have the means of disposing the powerful minority if they work together, whether the minority in power wants it or not. The founding fathers among others, have accomplished this remarkably well with private ownership of firearms - but this is not enough. As the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries have shown us, the dissemination of information and free speech is as important to the well-being of the group as the ownership of firearms is. I believe this is where the internet steps in.

Third, we must ensure that the minority group is meritocratic in such a fashion that it does not select for the most corrupt individuals who can best assassinate, bribe, and blackmail their way to the top. Corruption like this inevitably leads to the weakening and destruction of the nation. I think this key element goes back to the first part of ensuring minority rule is intractably tied with group survival.

I got you man. I think we were in total agreement, but that you were thinking of anarchy as an absolute, while I was thinking about a scale of anarchy, from total statelessness to totalitarianism. You are right though, anarchy is an absolute - anarchy means no archon, no state, so that's poor communication on my behalf.

You're right about sovereignty being uncompromisable as well.

I suppose we just disagree on the role of the state. I personally believe that there should be a separation of the school and state. Education, media, academia, etc, should be totally separated from government, in the same manner as religion. I also believe in a prohibition against welfare and other forms of redistributionism.

My philosophy boils down to this: the state is prohibited from any activities that might represent a personal or institutional conflict of interest.

What you're advocating sounds like cultural engineering or something. I think that is unnecessary. All you need to do is eliminate the culturally dysgenic (or is it dysmemic?) practices of the state that allow unfit memes to proliferate. This is all tied up in removing conflicts of interest within the portfolio of state powers, whether coercive, economic or informational.

The state should exist only to protect the rights of its citizens to life, liberty and estate. Anything more or less is oppression.

alphas dominate the herd

yeah, we're mostly in agreement

I think that avoiding cnflicts of interest is a fiction, though.

if we don't culturally engineer, someone will

america is a good example. we deliberately avoided trying to culturally engineer anything, and the result is that we're the most culturally engineered people on the planet.

I'd rather have a centralized government TELL me to be (japanese) as an example, and tell me EXACTLY what that means, and then be forced to learn a little about tea ceremony and the emperor, and then that's where it ends, than have a gigantic media complex manufacture its own coercive institutions to get me to accept transgender, nigger, muslim suicide bombers.

the benefit to mandating culture and religion is that it effectively ends what would otherwise be an economic or social arms race. the chinese or japanese "silence" is a good example of this. they've made it culturally faux pas to brag, or to be an idiot and talk too much.

it solves a LOT of problems. trust me.

the function of freedom is to find optimal solutions in egodic systems, or traveling salesmen type problems, or in price discovery.

freedom of "culture" does not solve any of these problems. it simply makes culture a legally viable field of warfare. the saner societies have forbidden ALL warfare, including social warfare. competition takes place on the IQ/ economic level and there are no disgenic/discivilizational alternatives.

oh wew lad did you get banned for offtopic posting in /vg/ how weird.