Heh, now this is an interesting debate, though it might get us downvoted.
Nowadays, however, the U.S. government acts a single global authority that you have to contend with, and it has little tolerance for regimes that are outside of certain approved bounds.
Perhaps the current global international order is a better way to phrase it, since the US usually carries with it a constellation of European countries, and economic and political interests in other parts of the world play a large role in determining the US policy. In many interesting ways Washington DC seems to be the global imperial capital where vassals go to pay tribute and hopefully determine or influence policy.
The argument you present is hard to attack or criticize. We live in a society where we speak of nation building, spreading democracy and even refer to “humanitarian bombings” without a hint of sarcasm. And this is merely direct military action! One needs only to look at other international both covert and publicly know activities designed and used to spread and enforce these “approved bounds”, to realize that such military intervention plays only a small role in its upkeep. Many on Lesswrong seriously question democracy, but nearly any system they may have in mind to replace it is essentially unacceptable to the Western world. Because currently the ultimate purpose of the Western states or rather the superstructure they form is to expand into a universalist order that captures all humans everywhere. The very existence of humans living in a different system, or heavens forbid, thriving, is offensive to it. This I think includes even very moderate suggestions like say Futarchy. The ideology may not have a name, but it seems incredibly powerful, perfectly comparable in its influence on 21st and 20th century civlization with the influence of Marxist-Leninism or Jacobinism on the societies of their time.
We live in a society where we speak of nation building, spreading democracy and even refer to “humanitarian bombings” without a hint of sarcasm.
There is not even much criticism of it leaking into mainstream media. We’ve figured out how to dismiss “those protesty people” so well that we don’t even have to remember they exist. We don’t need a conspiracy to explain this, we’ve just gotten bored with it and no longer pay attention.
Anyone who pointed out the hypocrisy of sponsoring a civil war and conducting direct bombing campaigns against Libyans to “protect Libyans” was assumed to be a mouthpiece in a partisan debate—haters gonna hate right?
It’s a non-scholarly overview about the underlying social systems that the people in charge somewhat control. It includes informal resistance (slacking, poaching, wildcat strikes, riots) and says that formal resistance (unions, political action, revolutions) is frequently “leaders” surfing a wave they didn’t create.
Scott says that visual order is not as closely related to making things work well as those in charge would like to think. There’s a detailed description of African farming which looks sloppy to European eyes but is actually more effective at growing food—not having the same kind of plant next to each other means fewer pests, and having the ground completely shaded by leaves means water is conserved. There’s more about dictators wanting visual order and somewhat about how the aerial view leaves out how people actually live.
The most practical detail I saw was a strong recommendation that if you’re evaluating nursing homes, then make sure to talk to the patients when the staff isn’t present.
There’s a chapter in favor of the petty bourgeois—they have about as widely distributed ownership of the means of production as anyone’s ever seen.
I hope this gives something of a feel of the book—Scott’s very reasonable—he acknowledges that not all evil comes from centralization nor is decentralization reliably good, but too many people tip the balance farther in favor of centralization than it deserves.
Heh, now this is an interesting debate, though it might get us downvoted.
Perhaps the current global international order is a better way to phrase it, since the US usually carries with it a constellation of European countries, and economic and political interests in other parts of the world play a large role in determining the US policy. In many interesting ways Washington DC seems to be the global imperial capital where vassals go to pay tribute and hopefully determine or influence policy.
The argument you present is hard to attack or criticize. We live in a society where we speak of nation building, spreading democracy and even refer to “humanitarian bombings” without a hint of sarcasm. And this is merely direct military action! One needs only to look at other international both covert and publicly know activities designed and used to spread and enforce these “approved bounds”, to realize that such military intervention plays only a small role in its upkeep. Many on Lesswrong seriously question democracy, but nearly any system they may have in mind to replace it is essentially unacceptable to the Western world. Because currently the ultimate purpose of the Western states or rather the superstructure they form is to expand into a universalist order that captures all humans everywhere. The very existence of humans living in a different system, or heavens forbid, thriving, is offensive to it. This I think includes even very moderate suggestions like say Futarchy. The ideology may not have a name, but it seems incredibly powerful, perfectly comparable in its influence on 21st and 20th century civlization with the influence of Marxist-Leninism or Jacobinism on the societies of their time.
There is not even much criticism of it leaking into mainstream media. We’ve figured out how to dismiss “those protesty people” so well that we don’t even have to remember they exist. We don’t need a conspiracy to explain this, we’ve just gotten bored with it and no longer pay attention.
Anyone who pointed out the hypocrisy of sponsoring a civil war and conducting direct bombing campaigns against Libyans to “protect Libyans” was assumed to be a mouthpiece in a partisan debate—haters gonna hate right?
Have you read James Scott’s Two Cheers for Anarchy?
No I haven’t. I will be putting it on my to reading list due to your recommendation though. Mind summarizing the content?
It’s a non-scholarly overview about the underlying social systems that the people in charge somewhat control. It includes informal resistance (slacking, poaching, wildcat strikes, riots) and says that formal resistance (unions, political action, revolutions) is frequently “leaders” surfing a wave they didn’t create.
Scott says that visual order is not as closely related to making things work well as those in charge would like to think. There’s a detailed description of African farming which looks sloppy to European eyes but is actually more effective at growing food—not having the same kind of plant next to each other means fewer pests, and having the ground completely shaded by leaves means water is conserved. There’s more about dictators wanting visual order and somewhat about how the aerial view leaves out how people actually live.
The most practical detail I saw was a strong recommendation that if you’re evaluating nursing homes, then make sure to talk to the patients when the staff isn’t present.
There’s a chapter in favor of the petty bourgeois—they have about as widely distributed ownership of the means of production as anyone’s ever seen.
I hope this gives something of a feel of the book—Scott’s very reasonable—he acknowledges that not all evil comes from centralization nor is decentralization reliably good, but too many people tip the balance farther in favor of centralization than it deserves.