What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.