Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:43 am
How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Ardoki wrote:How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?
Frievolk wrote:And the Left-anarchist will, with exactly that level of certainty, reply "How can you ave private employment and abolish coercion at the same time tho? pick one!"The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.
Kubra wrote:Sure it is, insofar as it was kinda the big thing for the guys who first called themselves anarchism. Like, their biggest thing. It's the thing they most cared and wrote about. It was one of the main defining features of anarchism before the right wing sorts over a century later.The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.
Torrocca wrote:Organize things, suggest how things can be done, suggest what roles people can do, look for volunteers for certain efforts, setting an example for the community, and so on. Leadership's not just bossing around the nearest person.
B-But... they generally avoid majority votes. It says it right there ;~;
Well, firstly, actually, if a given person is directly participating in and benefitting from a community in an Anarchist society, then the implication of that is that they're consenting to and promising to abide by the rules that the community democratically agrees on. Technically speaking, if they wish to continue voluntarily participating within the community, then they have to follow the rules they agreed to and decided on with the rest of their community. Since they also have a say in the decision-making process of developing rules, including the development and change of the initially-proposed rule so that the community can reach a consensus, then it's already a rule they more or less agreed to anyway, barring cases of majority votes. Essentially, they've already agreed to do what the community says is acceptable and to avoid what isn't on the basis of voluntarily participating in the community and the self-governance of it.
In regards to leaders, that's an iffier situation, but understandable why someone can refuse to listen to/follow them: if the leader, assuming an Anarchist community decides to have one, tries to coerce or force someone to do something, that is essentially the creation of an unjust hierarchy. Since Anarchists are against unjust hierarchies, the person being forced/coerced has every right in such a society to deny consent. Now, on the other hand, the leader has every right themselves to ask a fellow community member to do a certain task or something else that'd fall in a leader's purview, and in that scenario (I base this part wholly off evidence of Anarchist leadership in action as seen by George Orwell in Spain as written in Homage to Catalonia) then, it's unlikely such a leader would find someone unwilling to volunteer themselves for such a task; all the same, the importance and recognition of consent is still there, so it's ultimately the choice of the community member - not the leader - as to what they'll do.
Genivaria wrote:This is why I'm a left-libertarian, not any kind of 'anarchist'.
I don't bother myself with silly notions of 'abolishing coercion'.