this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
243 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44267 readers
928 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
.
A government could be good. In theory:
I'm sure there's other ideas regarding this.
Who asseses people's capabilities in this system? As they are likely the most powerful people.
With 1 year and no second term they're just gonna steal everything within their reach from day 1, so we need to balance it with:
Then, maybe.
It'd need to be a system that automates itself instead of needing surveillance. Something that simply disincentivizes corruption.
How about "if you accept the bribe, report it and do nothing, you can keep it"?
Control goes back further than just territories to tribes. The tribe identity is only later tied to specific locations. Tribes formed because pooling resources burdens and learning was more efficient than doing it all yourself. From there, the tribes expanded and joined together and eventually settled into one location. So I disagree that oppressors just decided one day.
This was the case before countries existed. The territories used to be limited to how far the human cattle could walk, be productive and walk back home in day.
Freedom is only possible where the possibility of encountering other humans is negligible.
Whenever humans aglomerate, non productive humans require handouts to live. If they do not receive then they die. If they don't want to die, they will steal. If the other humans resist, there will be a struggle and whoever wins becomes the state.
I think keeping population below 1 per square kilometer and spread out is the best solution to the state predation problem.
That's a rather curious historical narrative. I can't say that I agree with it.
That's probably the most polite disagreement I've ever had, I think I'll save this comment !
Yeah, we know, politicians.
You got it, the mediators between us and them. See Europe and their history with romas people, for what it looks like when this peace breaks down.
1 per square kilometer is physically impossible unless you plan on finding a way to kill 7.9 billion people.
Earth has 146 million square kilometers of land.
It's a neat idea but I think "the largest genocide in the history of humanity" kinda outweighs your solution.
About 64 million square km is habitable. Everyone stop having babies until we reach this number. That's how we can have a stateless borderless utopia.
You won't see it in your lifetime. About 150,000 people die a day assuming no natural disasters or disease. 7.9 billion / 150,000 = 52,666 days. About 144 years for your dream.
I'm fine to plant the idea of a borderless countryless stateless world without war even if I never sit in its shade
N
Can't tell whether sarcasm or high.
The Chinese who took over Hong Kong don't seem very fictional.