I ended up with this as a result of trying to fit my statement as one post in the thread the ideal government.
I posted some time ago this idea that I felt we should make a big prisonlike megacomplex that would house anyone that would want to enter, such as thirdworlders. It’s basically set for your security and survival at a minimal price, which removes all the comforts and privileges except that you can still leave. I mean, would you want a little bunk in a cell with maybe a pen and paper . . . maybe educate yourself to find a capitalist ticker out of there, or starve to death?
This is like the police state to its ultimate end. It is driven toward fairness . . . that means no rape, no forced starvation, no murder. So much so that there is also no liberty.
And then I thought of the other extreme. A lot of people on the board want a much more liberal society, whose concepts I often agree with.
We have to remember that these ideas do not lead to euphoric fantasies we might try to describe, but they still might have realistic possibilities. I think the real essence of what we’re getting at is a world where people have the options of these different styles. The Berlin Wall seemed to signify this (“live on the communist side or the capitalist side”) but perhaps was simply too crude or too drenched in political conflict, to work. Indeed, though, we are still trying to make little berlin . . . cubicles. Like a different state tailored to people who want to live “this way” or “that way.” It seems kind of coldly segregated, but people seem to consider it a genuine liberty to have a different place you can go to with such different laws. One will kill people for murder. One will allow prostitution . . . and so it goes.
For the opposite example of the socialist police state extreme: I think anarchoprimitivism holds useful ideals (eg: Less ecological destruction, less of the strange atrocities technology offers). But it also has likely side effects we normally wouldn’t think is part of anarchoprimitivism. For one: Nuclear holocaust. Sure, technology is torn down, but will it really be so far buried that no one can get into tinkering in some den of their own at a random plot of land? And without all the planes, the spies, the satellites piercing into our homes and our lives- will we REALLY sit there to assume we’ll stop someone from starting the feared technology threats again? Would everyone REALLY be devoid of those sorts of motives? And secondly, will we REALLY not divert into cultures of rape gangs and warlords. (Oh yes. To some of you I suppose that’s a wet dream).
But what about this alternative? . . .
Laws are minimalized to the point that the social contract is the only law, and only where tangible. Key difference: only where tangible.
This is not really extremist thought. A lot of very conservative people are completely bewildered that the law could get so ridiculous at what we can consider property.
Biologists themselves (Michael Creighton) are disgusted and enraged by the ridiculous “intellectual property” (I think falls under that category) that allows people to randomly patent genes that they ripped off of some person or some plant. You OWN not just a life . . . but a TYPE of life. (??) Come on!
And secondly, although we applaud real intellectual property (software, real functional patents) these are still not tangible property and has to simply be discarded. We can contend with the fact that there will still be lucrative markets like award shows to those that invent things. There are still tangible ways of proving whom came up with the idea first (if they know how to make their tracks – like kitchen copyright). But we simply have to contend with the fact that people will still invent and make songs and movies, etc. simply because they enjoy the creative spirit and they still stand chance to attain fame and win awards.
There are other intangible things. Like when you pay for maintenance on your car, you can’t just pay for the materials. The very state that your car exists in must be documented. Sure you don’t want someone stealing your car. But is it not that paranoid that you can’t even change a motor without the proper licensing verifying the change?
The global market is pushing for a world where the types of property regulation you see in wealthier countries will be the rules -everywhere-. And thus it becomes a fundamentalist regime. The G8 corporate “gods” The saudi-bushes.
If we return to the principal of choice (each society has goods and bads) as the berlin wall had, maybe this is the only reasonable way. The least of fundamentalism, and the most tangible of differences.
I have more to say, but I’ll end it there for now.