To your last point, it is to actually value and pursue the good of every creature in their jurisdiction. What do you think of the necessity, sufficiency, checks, balances, and legitimacy of LFS?
To your last point, it is to actually value and pursue the good of every creature in their jurisdiction. What do you think of the necessity, sufficiency, checks, balances, and legitimacy of LFS?
The challenge with checks and balances is the question of who has the right to select them and enforce them. I don’t disagree with the need for voluntary agreements for safety, but I do disagree with power being imposed from the top down.
I’ve read your Libertarian Socialist Fascist ideals now a couple of times & as I’ve said before I’m not convinced they are Libertarian or Socialist unless we redefine those words to be the opposite of what they usually mean.
But maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part to see how your system would work - do you know of any historical examples of anything similar working?
I don't know of anything similar in any context. But i mention it now particularly in relation to scale, and how world -level issues can only be solved with world-level government, and the absolute necessity for reduction in scale of all things in order to enable more egalitarian options at all. And the inherent legitimacy that comes with necessary management districts.
Also, i don't acknowledge Zomia or any civilization to be non-heirarchical, only horizontally disbursed. Even an egalitarian council of heads of household, which is a functional minimum, is a heirarchical system. But perhaps you intend something more about central planning?
I too desire to see world level issues solved - but believe this will come from empowering those at the bottom and dismantling the systems that rule over them - because giving more power at the top will always inevitably lead to the focus of those at the top being primarily on preserving their power, and this always leads to dystopian results.
If egalitarianism is when equality is respected and honoured then I believe this is incompatible with unequal power structures & I do not believe any system of ‘management’ over people can ever be legitimate because it is never truly wholly consented to.
However, if you consider horizontal organisation to be hierarchal then we may be using that word in a different way too.
I believe requiring public servants to live and act as it, along with the primary duty of delegation, remove both the potential and the motivation for such a top down malfeasance. I took great care to dis-incentivize bad behaviour, not least of which is that through degrowth it's easy for everyone to have enough.
Pepsi duty? How do you enforce this requirement? What is to stop the public servants allowing, giving or refusing something in return for favours? What will stop them from granting more powers for themselves?
There are all sorts of churches and balances meant to address specifically the things you bring up. In the end the restraint is mostly through education, transparency, and actually giving a shit about what people need. Anyone with control of actual, physical power can do at they please to increase it, but we cannot keep people from having access to that power if we're to get things done. We must work to address the incentives. The rest is symptoms.
But, though you've read it twice, i don't think you've read it once. It's absolutely full of aspects intended to reduce the potential for tyranny of any variety. But the details are secondary. The foundation is ethical necessity. Are you sure you've read it?
To your last point, it is to actually value and pursue the good of every creature in their jurisdiction. What do you think of the necessity, sufficiency, checks, balances, and legitimacy of LFS?
The challenge with checks and balances is the question of who has the right to select them and enforce them. I don’t disagree with the need for voluntary agreements for safety, but I do disagree with power being imposed from the top down.
I’ve read your Libertarian Socialist Fascist ideals now a couple of times & as I’ve said before I’m not convinced they are Libertarian or Socialist unless we redefine those words to be the opposite of what they usually mean.
But maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part to see how your system would work - do you know of any historical examples of anything similar working?
I don't know of anything similar in any context. But i mention it now particularly in relation to scale, and how world -level issues can only be solved with world-level government, and the absolute necessity for reduction in scale of all things in order to enable more egalitarian options at all. And the inherent legitimacy that comes with necessary management districts.
Also, i don't acknowledge Zomia or any civilization to be non-heirarchical, only horizontally disbursed. Even an egalitarian council of heads of household, which is a functional minimum, is a heirarchical system. But perhaps you intend something more about central planning?
I too desire to see world level issues solved - but believe this will come from empowering those at the bottom and dismantling the systems that rule over them - because giving more power at the top will always inevitably lead to the focus of those at the top being primarily on preserving their power, and this always leads to dystopian results.
If egalitarianism is when equality is respected and honoured then I believe this is incompatible with unequal power structures & I do not believe any system of ‘management’ over people can ever be legitimate because it is never truly wholly consented to.
However, if you consider horizontal organisation to be hierarchal then we may be using that word in a different way too.
I believe requiring public servants to live and act as it, along with the primary duty of delegation, remove both the potential and the motivation for such a top down malfeasance. I took great care to dis-incentivize bad behaviour, not least of which is that through degrowth it's easy for everyone to have enough.
Pepsi duty? How do you enforce this requirement? What is to stop the public servants allowing, giving or refusing something in return for favours? What will stop them from granting more powers for themselves?
Primary duty.
There are all sorts of churches and balances meant to address specifically the things you bring up. In the end the restraint is mostly through education, transparency, and actually giving a shit about what people need. Anyone with control of actual, physical power can do at they please to increase it, but we cannot keep people from having access to that power if we're to get things done. We must work to address the incentives. The rest is symptoms.
But, though you've read it twice, i don't think you've read it once. It's absolutely full of aspects intended to reduce the potential for tyranny of any variety. But the details are secondary. The foundation is ethical necessity. Are you sure you've read it?
If all else fails: https://substack.com/@kaiserbasileus/p-142746841