Oddbean new post about login | logout These economies will be crushed by bigger ones every time. You can have local small governments too. Small constitutional monarchies everywhere. Much more feasible than anarchism, which will get nothing done because the culture will never coordinate or agree on any large projects. You cannot think that far in the future with a society so fragmented.
I find it rather the opposite. You are freer to think longer term when there is no larger society to worry about. Constitutional monarchism is an interesting thought, but, I still reject it for the same reasons I reject all human government.
I imagine a word where we have about as many monarchies as we have counties in the USA. But globally. Tax would be more voluntary with such small geographic landscapes. Freedom of movement exists. People will organize naturally. Those monarchies that opress their people will fall in short order.
Why bother having a monarchy at all, then?
That's close enough to anarchy that I don't see any point in making a distinction. Anarchy would just be that, but on an even smaller scale. It doesn't work without property, and if you can own a few miles and pass it on to your kids, then you might as well invent some titles and call it a monarchy.
monarchy seems great... if you're the monarch i don't quite understand who anyone else would voluntarily go along in such a system of government though like im not sure "benevolent monarchy" is a less juvenile world view than thinking anarchism would work, both are different strains of romanticism
People have freedom of movement. People will always have a natural organization of hierarchies. I stack sats so I can be the monarch. Or at least a noble.
where does this freedom of movement come from, what prevents the monarch from locking you up if you want to leave? or why would another let you in? i dunno, but imo if you're going to be idealistic about people's behavior, anarchy and self-sovereignty seems a better tree to bark up to, at least it's based on your own responsibility
Wear a sweater, chicken neck
Why do you say anarchy is fragmented? I don't know if it has been tried but maybe because we didn't have the technology until now.
Anarchy lacks the ability to organize because of the lack of central authority.
You can have authority in anarchy (doesn't have to be central). The only difference is it's not coercive, people can choose to participate or not, and let's say they have to pay to participate. Why wouldn't that scale?
Have you ever heard of big companies?
You mean companies? With CEOs? That would be the central authority.