Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group’s identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn’t going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can’t even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
You want a consensus that agrees with you and your way of doing things which cannot be obtained through a stateless society. A stateless society lacks a consensus yet still has the benefits of state based society. A dictatorship is an imposed consensus which is the only way to get what you want.
You already have teaberry ice cream. You want a teaberry dictator.
That’s the unfun answer of getting people to agree that’s on the ballot this year. 538 shows that today, that teaberry is only one point down. Best to ignore the polls and Vote Blue!
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group’s identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn’t going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can’t even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
Teaberry ain’t gonna ever win even in a ranked choice system. It’s just too unpopular.
I’m too tired and drunk to read the rest of it.
To summarize, you don’t want ice cream anarchy, you want an ice cream dictator who agrees with you.
I want fucking teaberry ice cream. You’re the one insisting the only way to get it is to force everyone to eat it.
You want a consensus that agrees with you and your way of doing things which cannot be obtained through a stateless society. A stateless society lacks a consensus yet still has the benefits of state based society. A dictatorship is an imposed consensus which is the only way to get what you want.
You already have teaberry ice cream. You want a teaberry dictator.
Weird. My family arrived at a consensus on what to have for dinner without needing a state to mediate….
That’s a large family you have there with over 340 million people.
Maybe countries shouldn’t be that fucking big then.
Which, as it happens, is one particular teaberry I want that will never be chosen.
That’s the unfun answer of getting people to agree that’s on the ballot this year. 538 shows that today, that teaberry is only one point down. Best to ignore the polls and Vote Blue!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/