| badgenome said: Of course. I don't argue that it "works". Nothing does in the long run. There have to be revolutions eventually, and after each one you are always on borrowed time until the next one. We're well overdue currently. I only mean that, if it is true that legitimate power can only come from the consent of the governed - and everybody seems to agree on that in theory though they may violate it in fact on a daily basis - then huge swaths of the governed can't be dissolved into a massive empire in such a manner that a coalition of states can tell people in another state on the other side of the country how to behave in their own goddamn state, and oh, by the way if you try to leave the union we'll kill ya 'cause More Perfect Union. As for anarchy, feels good and all that, but I can't see how a power vacuum isn't going to be filled by people who don't even have to pretend to like your stupid ass or care about your hahaha "rights". So in that sense, it's also on borrowed time. Additionally, it won't be long until people organize some thing that is functionally a state, anyway, whether or not they call it one. Just as surely as small government will always turn into big government, no government will always turn into some government. Best to keep it close, I think. |
I always love that argument against anarchy. "The worst thing about anarchy is that we might end up with Governments", so the worst-case scenario is what we have today? Ok, cool.
I can't really answer the points you raised in this post without delving too much into philosophy and we'll both be dealing with abstractions with no empirical evidence, I can't be arsed with all that, so I'm bailing on this one.
