It seems we share intentions but come to opposite conclusions here!
My starting point is that "war is the health of the state." I think a world government, instead of ceasing all wars, would become embroiled in endless internal conflict trying to stamp out domestic unrest.
I also don't trust that the leaders of such a world-spanning NATO would refrain from using such consolidated power unjustly.
In my view, the way to world peace lies precisely in the gradual disarmament you've desceibed, but that this process can only come about with less, not more, government.
World wide government to me spells world wide tyranny. Also, it’s only governments that make big wars. So the answer isn’t to make a really really big government. The answer is no governments.
How does your plan actually pan out? Literally no government and just community cooperation? Communes, or libertarian? Only local government? Is there any "Federal" government? No cooperation across larger territories, like no EU, no Federal US Govt?
I’m not sure, but what I know is that it’s governments that do all the big wars. So the governments are the problems and causes and perpetrators of big wars.
Governments are nothing more than collections of humans though, it's humans (in charge) that cause the war. Over time, especially in the last 75 years or so, it's larger and larger governments that have prevented more war. 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years, 10,000 etc we had lot's and lot's of little governments and a lot more war. Take it back to the earliest days of humans and it was tribal warfare.... because humans are humans.
So, while you could make the case that governments perpetrate war, government collaboration also prevents it. We are in the single most peaceful era of all human history right now and that's largely thanks to government cooperation like NATO. Bad people in bad governments (like Putin) can perpetrate war, but large scale cooperation like NATO, and the EU (government) can and does prevent it.
Government may not always be palatable, but it has largely been a good thing for humanity
The sheer amount of war and violent death in human history is astounding. Are you forgetting about Genghis Khan and viking raids, and the crusades, and tribal warfare before we even created modern civilization?
Yes there are wars going on right now in various parts of the world, but the probability of a random human dying from war in 2024 is significantly lower than 100 years ago, 2 thousand, 4 thousand, or 10 thousand years ago.... it's possible it's slightly worse right now than the 1990s, maybe, but on the scale of human history we are currently in the most peaceful era.
Mostly men, sure, but not only men. There have been plenty of women in power that were part of or incited war and tyranny, Elizabeth the 1st of England, Isabella of Spain, Catharine the Great in Russia, etc etc.
I keep seeing NATO inflaming tensions and wars like the ones we are seeing and I tend not to trust the handlers of such huge militaries. The idea of benevolent defensive pacts is nice yet there seem to be other forces running through that create secret motives.
I also question the the idea of more countries spending more on military to make us all safer.
I’m not saying there aren’t other players taking actions towards/of war & violence. I am saying that NATO is not an effective arbiter of peace.
I have heard enough to discredit the narrative line of “unprovoked attacks” to distrust the intentions of this organization as it is today, and many others connected to the military industrial complex.
I also think there are better ways of bringing peace than through threat of more powerful violence. I feel worried that NATO nations are not sufficiently avoidant of nuclear war and I’m hearing them (France) actually flirt with the possibility of entering nuclear war. I’m not sure what human on earth would benefit from the aftermath of that.
I don’t want to trust the role of peacemaker to military groups whose individuals get career boosts when there is war.
I think we can look at current and historical examples of people who fought to create or maintain stateless existence, and learn a lot about how to fight asymmetrical warfare against much larger and more powerful foes.
But I also think, in the long run, they won't. States with expansionist tendencies will always try to invade and conquer their neighbors. So the real victory imo is the extent to which free societies can inspire rebellion in their governed neighbors.
How does this pan out? We all get inspired, rebel against our governments, the governments come crashing down with minimal bloodshed, then we live peaceful lives with no government? Each community lives in peace? No warlords decide to conquer neighboring communes? No evil people?
I read it. It sounds amazing and yet completely and utterly naive.
I believe we can achieve maybe even 75% of what you want, but not through an anarchist revolution of community communes. I really don't think you're accounting enough for human nature. There will always be greedy people, evil people, etc. You have to have a government with a monopoly on violence to counteract the fringe bad guys. Through better and more government we can achieve a lot of what you want and I'm all for post capitalism, but it's so unlikely to be achieved via communist revolution. My bet is on AI.
on the contrary, i think anarchy is the only approach that accounts for human nature. it works both ways: if humans are basically good, than we can trust ourselves and each other to handle our own affairs. we don't need to be governed. but if people are basically bad, then we should not trust people with the power to govern other people, because of course someone will eventually abuse that power. (and right now it's more like everywhere/always, not eventually!)
The most important part of this plan is a plan for dealing with delinquency. It's crazy to see developed, successful countries like Netherlands, Germany, and Canada as delinquent. When are they cut out?
It seems we share intentions but come to opposite conclusions here!
My starting point is that "war is the health of the state." I think a world government, instead of ceasing all wars, would become embroiled in endless internal conflict trying to stamp out domestic unrest.
I also don't trust that the leaders of such a world-spanning NATO would refrain from using such consolidated power unjustly.
In my view, the way to world peace lies precisely in the gradual disarmament you've desceibed, but that this process can only come about with less, not more, government.
World wide government to me spells world wide tyranny. Also, it’s only governments that make big wars. So the answer isn’t to make a really really big government. The answer is no governments.
How does your plan actually pan out? Literally no government and just community cooperation? Communes, or libertarian? Only local government? Is there any "Federal" government? No cooperation across larger territories, like no EU, no Federal US Govt?
I’m not sure, but what I know is that it’s governments that do all the big wars. So the governments are the problems and causes and perpetrators of big wars.
Governments are nothing more than collections of humans though, it's humans (in charge) that cause the war. Over time, especially in the last 75 years or so, it's larger and larger governments that have prevented more war. 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years, 10,000 etc we had lot's and lot's of little governments and a lot more war. Take it back to the earliest days of humans and it was tribal warfare.... because humans are humans.
So, while you could make the case that governments perpetrate war, government collaboration also prevents it. We are in the single most peaceful era of all human history right now and that's largely thanks to government cooperation like NATO. Bad people in bad governments (like Putin) can perpetrate war, but large scale cooperation like NATO, and the EU (government) can and does prevent it.
Government may not always be palatable, but it has largely been a good thing for humanity
"single most peaceful era"? Sorry, how do you figure?
The sheer amount of war and violent death in human history is astounding. Are you forgetting about Genghis Khan and viking raids, and the crusades, and tribal warfare before we even created modern civilization?
Yes there are wars going on right now in various parts of the world, but the probability of a random human dying from war in 2024 is significantly lower than 100 years ago, 2 thousand, 4 thousand, or 10 thousand years ago.... it's possible it's slightly worse right now than the 1990s, maybe, but on the scale of human history we are currently in the most peaceful era.
inchresting. i think you and i define "peace" very differently. it seems i've discovered a whole genre of post i didn't know i needed to write.
Maybe governments are a step on the way to something better in the history of humanity. Also when you said humans what you actually meant was “men.”
Mostly men, sure, but not only men. There have been plenty of women in power that were part of or incited war and tyranny, Elizabeth the 1st of England, Isabella of Spain, Catharine the Great in Russia, etc etc.
I keep seeing NATO inflaming tensions and wars like the ones we are seeing and I tend not to trust the handlers of such huge militaries. The idea of benevolent defensive pacts is nice yet there seem to be other forces running through that create secret motives.
I also question the the idea of more countries spending more on military to make us all safer.
NATO inflaming tensions and wars? You sure it's not other countries attempting to inflame war against NATO member states?
I’m not saying there aren’t other players taking actions towards/of war & violence. I am saying that NATO is not an effective arbiter of peace.
I have heard enough to discredit the narrative line of “unprovoked attacks” to distrust the intentions of this organization as it is today, and many others connected to the military industrial complex.
I also think there are better ways of bringing peace than through threat of more powerful violence. I feel worried that NATO nations are not sufficiently avoidant of nuclear war and I’m hearing them (France) actually flirt with the possibility of entering nuclear war. I’m not sure what human on earth would benefit from the aftermath of that.
I don’t want to trust the role of peacemaker to military groups whose individuals get career boosts when there is war.
How would places with no government protect themselves from the places that do have government?
That's the million dollar question right there.
I think we can look at current and historical examples of people who fought to create or maintain stateless existence, and learn a lot about how to fight asymmetrical warfare against much larger and more powerful foes.
But I also think, in the long run, they won't. States with expansionist tendencies will always try to invade and conquer their neighbors. So the real victory imo is the extent to which free societies can inspire rebellion in their governed neighbors.
How does this pan out? We all get inspired, rebel against our governments, the governments come crashing down with minimal bloodshed, then we live peaceful lives with no government? Each community lives in peace? No warlords decide to conquer neighboring communes? No evil people?
Good question! I wrote a post that answers it in some detail:
https://open.substack.com/pub/anarchyemergencelove/p/how-we-saved-the-world-from-underground
I read it. It sounds amazing and yet completely and utterly naive.
I believe we can achieve maybe even 75% of what you want, but not through an anarchist revolution of community communes. I really don't think you're accounting enough for human nature. There will always be greedy people, evil people, etc. You have to have a government with a monopoly on violence to counteract the fringe bad guys. Through better and more government we can achieve a lot of what you want and I'm all for post capitalism, but it's so unlikely to be achieved via communist revolution. My bet is on AI.
on the contrary, i think anarchy is the only approach that accounts for human nature. it works both ways: if humans are basically good, than we can trust ourselves and each other to handle our own affairs. we don't need to be governed. but if people are basically bad, then we should not trust people with the power to govern other people, because of course someone will eventually abuse that power. (and right now it's more like everywhere/always, not eventually!)
Guess it’s like nato and works best if everyone does it.
Or maybe they have to hide themselves from the remaining governments or make themselves unattractive targets in some other way.
The most important part of this plan is a plan for dealing with delinquency. It's crazy to see developed, successful countries like Netherlands, Germany, and Canada as delinquent. When are they cut out?
So agree.