you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (3 children)

the idea everyone deserves their independence

It has a good sound to it, but how does that play out in reality? Every individual on their own with no alliances? (the logical result)

Once you begin forming alliances with other humans, you're no longer independent. Basic example of this is finding a mate. Now you've created your own "mini-state". Have kids, and now you need laws and enforcement.

A species needs at least this level of interdependence to survive, so total independence is clearly out. So is the family unit the best level of independence? Them against the world? Perhaps a village? Maybe a few villages? A state? A country?

Note: I somewhat agree with the idea of local control over ones affairs, with 'local' being roughly one days walking distance. It was a mistake to advance technology to the point where local control no longer works.

[–]an-arkhos 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

I think your misunderstanding, everyone deserves to be independent does not mean everyone wants to be, will be, or should be, nor should independence be mistaken for being self sufficient.

and just because your independent does not mean you cannot trade or make other agreements, being independent is about making your own decisions vs decisions that effect you being made by other people.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

But many decisions by other people will necessarily affect you. The color your neighbor paints their house will affect your property values. Decisions by random people to move to your town affect how much water you'll have, how much space will be available for you in public spaces, and on and on. If food store owners decided your area is no longer safe enough, they'll all leave and how far will you drive for food?

Your "independent" clothing choices will affect decisions made by buyers. Small influence from you alone, but the aggregate drives the clothing and fashion industries.

I think I see what you're getting at, and that used to work in the old days. Now, there are too many people, and the ramifications of that make actual independence difficult, if not impossible. I agree that independence is highly desirable, but our society took the overpopulation road over my objections.

[–]an-arkhos 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Why use different logic for economics and politics? More people, more companies, more different products, more choices, yet somehow on the political spectrum the increase in population should lead to less choices and less independent fractions?

Sorry to cut it short but i got 2 run