I think that's probably true for every human governance structure. Some require a constant dictator, others need one during the initiation phase, still others require a "messianic dictatorial intervention" in their collapse phase.
The family unit has to become a clan to survive. Clan units accrete into tribal structures. Tribes run up against the Dunbar Limit and either fracture or convert into petty kingdoms. When a petty king gathers enough resources, or is forced by circumstances, he aggregates all reginal assets (people, land, materiel) into a town that either becomes a city or gets swallowed up. Cities become City States and, depending on the process of formation, become a calcified structure locking in the previously dynamic Aris/Commons structure. The seeds of the aristocracy germinate during previous phases, and the blueprint is laid out all the way back in the Clan phase, which itself is just an operationalized & scaled version of the Natural Familial Hierarchy, but the City State is required for it to blossom.
City States, in my opinion, are absolutely capable of being the end stage of Society, but they don't have to be, and City States can be grouped into Countries under the proper circumstances, which almost inevitably lead to Empires. At every stage, the configuration is pyramidal. I would argue it has to be due to biology, physics, and metaphysics. The hierarchical configuration just works, it is an artistic rendition of the Natural Hierarchy, the endless dance of Predator, Prey, and Scarcity. Revolts against nature are parasitic formulations that can only feed off the carcass of the hierarchy they infect and overwhelm. Depending on the mass and vitality of the hierarchy they parasitize, they can drag on for long periods. But they cannot create Order, that is a competency reserved exclusively for Hierarchy. In time, they collapse, and, depending on the biological, cultural, geographical, climatological, and infrastructural components, the process can resume at almost any of the aforementioned stages.
So, if we accept the above as correct, we con confidently state that if the hierarchy is in disarray, in the process of being dismantled, or hidden by deceit, the Society under review is in a Parasitic State.
I think most people actually are, it just has to be phrased properly... or they have to go through real chaos and break down of order. Then their propriety about terminology, as well as their grade school level capacity for understanding civics and social studies, go flying out the window, and all they care about is whether or not their lives be safe and predictable again, or ever.
Same boat. Half this post is me shooting darts at the self-righteous dork I was, so utterly convinced of my perfect little theories. This is another "genetic" tie that Libertarianism has with Progressivism: it imbues certain of its adherents with a sort evangelistic spirit that makes them insufferable. This is also an artifact of personality, not just a function of the ideology; these types can/will be insufferable and certain wherever they end up. But certain ideollectual formulations seem particularly conducive to being applied at scale. And something about Libertarianism, currently not historically, just doesn't sit well with me.
My other problem with libertarianism is that, theoretically, they should be heart and soul against government schools. They are the most oppressive and freedom-destroying part of government. But they hardly ever say anything against them.
This may be an artifact of ideollectual purity. In current year, everyone has at least one -ist & -ism. You can either select your own, or accept the ones that are affixed to you based on race or nationality or sex. Because the system is ubiquitous, we then do it to everybody else, inasmuch we give someone the -ist or -ism we think they deserve. Everyone is Havel's Greengrocer until they clarify where they stand.
So there's a significant amount of "libertarians" out there with not even a smattering of canon reinforcing their political identity. If you smoke weed and like guns, you're a Libertarian. If you're an aughties liberal that is put off by genderbending, you're a Libertarian.
When I read about the first generation of libertarians, those manly men of sci-fi and mettle from the post-war period, I am at once dismayed and angry at the current standard bearers. But I imagine a bog standard monarchist from 1910 would take one look at me and recoil in bemused disgust.
The undying charm of libertarianism is that - like socialism but much further advanced - it is an attempt to craft a moral system from first principles such as to have it (hopefully but unsuccessfully) work IRL.
Measured on how little it relies on (the NAP only) and how close it comes to working (not much, but you get far more mileage than with socialism), I still consider it the pre-eminent constructed morality system.
Can one do better or is the whole concept of such a "zipped" system whereas a few principles allow one to derive a working society to be tossed?
I have often said that the only way that libertarianism could work is if it was imposed by a dictator.
I think that's probably true for every human governance structure. Some require a constant dictator, others need one during the initiation phase, still others require a "messianic dictatorial intervention" in their collapse phase.
The family unit has to become a clan to survive. Clan units accrete into tribal structures. Tribes run up against the Dunbar Limit and either fracture or convert into petty kingdoms. When a petty king gathers enough resources, or is forced by circumstances, he aggregates all reginal assets (people, land, materiel) into a town that either becomes a city or gets swallowed up. Cities become City States and, depending on the process of formation, become a calcified structure locking in the previously dynamic Aris/Commons structure. The seeds of the aristocracy germinate during previous phases, and the blueprint is laid out all the way back in the Clan phase, which itself is just an operationalized & scaled version of the Natural Familial Hierarchy, but the City State is required for it to blossom.
City States, in my opinion, are absolutely capable of being the end stage of Society, but they don't have to be, and City States can be grouped into Countries under the proper circumstances, which almost inevitably lead to Empires. At every stage, the configuration is pyramidal. I would argue it has to be due to biology, physics, and metaphysics. The hierarchical configuration just works, it is an artistic rendition of the Natural Hierarchy, the endless dance of Predator, Prey, and Scarcity. Revolts against nature are parasitic formulations that can only feed off the carcass of the hierarchy they infect and overwhelm. Depending on the mass and vitality of the hierarchy they parasitize, they can drag on for long periods. But they cannot create Order, that is a competency reserved exclusively for Hierarchy. In time, they collapse, and, depending on the biological, cultural, geographical, climatological, and infrastructural components, the process can resume at almost any of the aforementioned stages.
So, if we accept the above as correct, we con confidently state that if the hierarchy is in disarray, in the process of being dismantled, or hidden by deceit, the Society under review is in a Parasitic State.
Interesting theory. It seems to need some long form defintions :)
I'm OK with that.
I think most people actually are, it just has to be phrased properly... or they have to go through real chaos and break down of order. Then their propriety about terminology, as well as their grade school level capacity for understanding civics and social studies, go flying out the window, and all they care about is whether or not their lives be safe and predictable again, or ever.
Enjoyed this
High praise, thanks friend.
As a former libertarian, I agree with this overview
Same boat. Half this post is me shooting darts at the self-righteous dork I was, so utterly convinced of my perfect little theories. This is another "genetic" tie that Libertarianism has with Progressivism: it imbues certain of its adherents with a sort evangelistic spirit that makes them insufferable. This is also an artifact of personality, not just a function of the ideology; these types can/will be insufferable and certain wherever they end up. But certain ideollectual formulations seem particularly conducive to being applied at scale. And something about Libertarianism, currently not historically, just doesn't sit well with me.
kek
My other problem with libertarianism is that, theoretically, they should be heart and soul against government schools. They are the most oppressive and freedom-destroying part of government. But they hardly ever say anything against them.
This may be an artifact of ideollectual purity. In current year, everyone has at least one -ist & -ism. You can either select your own, or accept the ones that are affixed to you based on race or nationality or sex. Because the system is ubiquitous, we then do it to everybody else, inasmuch we give someone the -ist or -ism we think they deserve. Everyone is Havel's Greengrocer until they clarify where they stand.
So there's a significant amount of "libertarians" out there with not even a smattering of canon reinforcing their political identity. If you smoke weed and like guns, you're a Libertarian. If you're an aughties liberal that is put off by genderbending, you're a Libertarian.
When I read about the first generation of libertarians, those manly men of sci-fi and mettle from the post-war period, I am at once dismayed and angry at the current standard bearers. But I imagine a bog standard monarchist from 1910 would take one look at me and recoil in bemused disgust.
Another issue where the current 'libertarian' position is insanely un-libertarian is that of 'gay marriage'.
The undying charm of libertarianism is that - like socialism but much further advanced - it is an attempt to craft a moral system from first principles such as to have it (hopefully but unsuccessfully) work IRL.
Measured on how little it relies on (the NAP only) and how close it comes to working (not much, but you get far more mileage than with socialism), I still consider it the pre-eminent constructed morality system.
Can one do better or is the whole concept of such a "zipped" system whereas a few principles allow one to derive a working society to be tossed?