• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -21 day ago

    What do you mean? Presidents or Emperors? Either way: monopolisation of power corrupts both the ruled and the rulers.

    One example of an alternative: Democratic confederalism

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      220 hours ago

      Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US); they don’t get to unilaterally order anyone to do anything. The US has three governing bodies which are ideally supposed to balance each other out. Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).

      This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.

      There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).

      I’m not saying we should all be mindless slaves—even gorillas and chimps don’t have that—but the way you and others are describing it, it sounds like it isn’t offering anything particularly different than the failed US Confederacy, minus the impotent government at that time.

      Anyway, I’ll check out the podcast you suggested. I’m always up for learning! Thanks for the replies, and have a nice day.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Presidents don’t have a monopolization on power (in the US);

        Of course they do. Just because they “share” their power with a government, doesn’t mean the government doesn’t monopolize power.

        Also, the US already had a confederacy, and it didn’t work out so well (even ignoring slavery).

        Please read up on what “democratic confederalism” means. It’s not comparable to what the so-called US did (at least after Europeans arrived - the Iriquois confederacy is more like it).

        The so-called US was always focused on giving power to capitalists, while democratic confederalism is fundamentally socialist/usufruct.

        This is beginning to look a lot like it relies upon human goodwill and good faith participation, and it appears like it would be easy to exploit by a bad actor feigning innocence; as we’ve seen throughout history, there’s no shortage of selfish opportunists.

        You’ve got to realize that the current system is de facto succeptible to these bad actors by enabling them to amass power, right?

        There will always be a leader(s) at the top, even in a confederacy or a union. You need visionaries, and humans, like other apes, are naturally inclined towards having leaders and being told what to do (it saves mental energy for survival).

        I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s a narrative that’s very convenient to the powerful but not at all necessary. And there’s anthropological evidence that political hierarchies aren’t necessary in society.