You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
A government could be good. In theory:
- one year terms for elected individuals in public offices
- no second term
- getting elected is a random draw (akin to jury duty) based on the individuals' capabilities
- authority limited in scope within city states
I'm sure there's other ideas regarding this.
getting elected is a random draw (akin to jury duty) based on the individuals' capabilities
Who asseses people's capabilities in this system? As they are likely the most powerful people.
Permanently Deleted
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:
- all public servants live under full transparency, 24/7 body cams etc for years after, financial transparency for life
- 2x to all prison sentences while serving
- a well-oiled practice to jail everyone who ain't a total saint
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"?
Permanently Deleted
Some oppressors (indirectly, but essentially) started drawing lines one day and agreed that they would each get to farm the humans in their own territory.
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Permanently Deleted
That's probably the most polite disagreement I've ever had, I think I'll save this comment !
Permanently Deleted
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.
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
Permanently Deleted
Can't tell whether sarcasm or high.
the cattle now tell themselves they don’t want to be free because their rancher told them about fictional wolves that conveniently exist everywhere past the imaginary line that serves as a fence.
The Chinese who took over Hong Kong don't seem very fictional.