Consume Product - Arete Network

Anarchy, Primitivism, and Technological Dictatorship tedpilled

posted 6 hours ago by bluewhiteandred on scored.co (+0 / -0 / )

Permalink

Introduction

I was wondering what people here have thought about primitivism (using less technology) and anarchism (there being less to no "government")

I was thinking about these topics when thinking about the political ideology of the USA for the Memorial day holiday weekend

As a teenager, the experience of "American freedom" was enjoyable, so I considered the idea of "anarchism" or taking "liberty" to its full logical extent to be possibly desirable

I think for me the idea of the old American less inhabited frontier seemed attractive, of someone having a plot of land and being self-sufficient ("individualist anarchism")

This kind of vision would only work somewhat with less technology (leaning in a "primitivism" direction), for if you need to make use of more developed machines, you become dependent on a complex network of people producing the machines

Anarcho-Capitalism

Eventually I was confronted with perhaps some of the naive views of "anarchism": for example, if there is no law against it, could someone just attack you and take all your things?

However, it was suggested in response, that if someone is "free" to do this, someone is also "free" to respond with self-defense; at this point, mere "anarchy" seems to transform into more of the vision of "anarcho-capitalism", or something like government entities existing without you having to have one central government

Because, in such a scenario, you would also be "free" to team up with friends to form something of a police force, of rules (laws) you agree to commonly, and of other such functions that we have centralized governments perform for us today

So, even if it is technically "anarchy", or there is no one single government, still it seems "naive anarchy" resolves to something of a "decentralized 'State'" existing - it's just not one entity, but it may be a collection of entities that we might group together and view as a "State" in one area

I guess a question is about if this is viable or desirable today ("anarcho-capitalism")

Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government; however, while you might be "free" from paying for a police force to exist, in practice you'd probably want police protection, and hence would pay a fee that is like a "tax" that is somewhat involuntarily imposed upon you by the state of nature of needing police help

Objection Example: What About the Children?

Certainly if you consider a lot of objections against "anarchy", one for example might come up that children might lack protections that exist under a government

I concede that this could be an issue, but on the other hand it seems like even with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening (whether by organized elites, or a common person) - so I'm not sure more abuses of children would or wouldn't exist (and I would enjoy hearing people's thoughts)

Technological Dictatorship

But I guess my question is about if we ought to move our government in the USA more towards smaller government (minarchy) or no government (anarchy), or about what goals exist for the development of our country going forward

Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?

Big corporations buy up smaller companies and grow even larger; States acquire new territories (like Trump eyeing up Greenland and Canada) to become larger; we keep building up a bigger global technological "machine", now powered by many datacenters to run AI programs

So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government" just a temporary measure before inevitable "End Times" that will come, and to what extent is it desirable to form smaller operations (small companies which are subject to going out of business towards larger corporations, or smaller governments or entities which are subject to warfare by larger States, or primitive lifestyles which are subject to being forcibly disrupted by technological developments?)

Conclusion

In our current political situation, a lot of us have "tribally" rallied around MAGA with Trump as the leader (not everyone on ConPro, lol), as we face many who don't share our values teaming up to bring us towards some other "vision" of what society should be; but I guess I was wondering what people think the ideal vision is to work towards in the face of the threat of "technological dictatorship" and if something of "anarchist primitivism" in contrast is desirable or an extreme to avoid, with a "lower tech small government" kind of situation being advocated for, or even something else entirely

devotech2 on scored.co

2 hours ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / ) 1 child

>primitivism

Isn't just less technology. It's the absence of it. It's a very idealistic philosophy but pretty much untenable without at least some belief in posadist apocalypticism. The closest thing to a genuinely primitivist society (not as in existing hunter gatherers or something, but as in a return to primitive life from urban life) was the khmer rouge. You might be looking for agrarianism or luddism though, which are different. I have mixed feelings about this. Technology has its downsides, but significantly scaling back technology rather than advancing it puts a revolutionary state at risk against countries that *do* advance their technology. I would also like to bring to light the example of the khmer Rouge (anti industrialists) vs the Vietnamese (who were building a fledgling industry) and how the Vietnamese crushed the khmer Rouge with barely a fight because of this.

>Anarcho-Capitalism

Is retarded. It might be the most idealist fantasy that has ever been crafted in people's minds. If Lolbertarianism is retarded, anarcho capitalism is absolutely brain dead. Anarchism and capitalism are two opposing ideologies. Capitalism is anti-anarchistic by nature (which is why anarchists tend to be leftists in general). Any anarcho-capitalist "state" would end up resembling a dictatorship because it would have to. In essence, it's self defeating, and as you already posited, corporations would end up serving the role of the government.

>Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government

Everyone gets their panties in a twist about taxes, but the only problem with taxes in reality is how they are used. For infinite wars in the middle east and gazillions of dollars to pissrael. A good state uses taxes for infrastructure and welfare alongside military and foreign affairs. If something isn't subsidized by taxes, the money will have to be paid for it out of pocket anyways. It will hurt me less to pay a tax than it will to have to pay for that thing out of pocket if I need to do so. The most potent example of this in the US is college education, which is not subsidized and puts students in debt forever (nevermind the fact that college is generally pretty useless, but let's pretend we're in an ideal state, and college becomes very useful).

>with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening

The problem: the state is bad and the culture is bad. The issue isn't the size of the state, and even if abortion were legalized (for whatever reason), if the culture weren't bad you wouldn't have these abortions anyways. You can't really blame the institution for it in and of itself. There are no forced abortions. However a good state would ensure the welfare of children and their safety better than an anarchist lack of state could.

>Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?

The issue again isn't that the state is larger. It isn't. And actually, compared to the past, the government has taken a backseat on interference since Reagan. So it's actually smaller than it was before (as in during the childhood of the boomers). Liberty doesn't come from "the government stops doing stuff", it comes from what stuff the government does. The government more or less has the same powers that it has always had. But what are they doing with that power? It isn't our own welfare because the government is paid for by jewish/corporate/jewish corporate lobbying.

>So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government"

Personally I don't think that this will ever happen. There's too many different factors between each country at play. It would be impossible and unrealistic to have a one world government. Resistance to a direct one world government would be insurmountable as well. So what do I think will happen? Lobbies in every individual country. Although this too has a great chance of failing.

Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed

Permalink Reply

WeedleTLiar on scored.co

52 minutes ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )

>Technology has its downsides, but significantly scaling back technology rather than advancing it puts a revolutionary state at risk against countries that do advance their technology.

Yes and no.

Obviously, in straight up combat the country with the hypersonic missiles will beat the country with the antiquated missile defense system. But we also see technogically superior countries being forced out by imporvised explosives, just because of the difference in cost. The winner isn't necessarily define by who has the better tech, but who makes better use of it.

Consider AI. At this point it's an unambiguously decadent technology. It cannot do the job of a useful worker for the same cost. All it's good for is creating fever dreams that actual humans need to interpret and refine before they're even entertaining, let alone useful. And the cost is absolutely insane; not just in terms of the equipment and resources consumed, but the damage wrought on whatever community the "data center" lands on. I predict that in 50 years, the countries that host these centers will regrwt building them.

Rather than reject *all* technology, I wonder if we could take a sober look at what we have, what we still need, what it all costs, and decide what we should continue to use. Rather than either having only what can be built by ourselves or relying on complex, fragile, and expensive supply chains, what if we boiled down our living requirements to a standard loadout, optimised it for durability and longevity, and create a super-detailed "bible" outlining all the steps and resources required to build or repair everything we use?

We could, in theory, create a physically agrarian lifestyle where the majority of basic needs are met by the individual (family) while still retaining the useful technogy we have now. Cities would sill exist but at much smaller scale, focusing on specialisation in building the most complex tools.

This is clearly a very synthetic idea and would have to be done quite intentionally, but it's a potential path to an anti-consumer society that can still compete with others.

1 hour ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / )

>Because, in such a scenario, you would also be "free" to team up with friends to form something of a police force, of rules (laws) you agree to commonly, and of other such functions that we have centralized governments perform for us today

What you're talking about is Tribalism or Clanism; the "friends" you team up with are invariably extended family.

Now, this *works*. We know it does because this is basically how every non-White country operates. There is a de facto central government but it's so incompetent or corrupt that it may as well be anarchy, at street level. Regular people survive by clanning up against all the other clans. Or starve. The issue is, it doesn't work *well*.

Whites also operated under this system up until the middle ages when techo-social circumstances evolved the next step; High Trust society. This is a system wherein people no longer view strangers as potential enemies, but as potential allies. This means that even though the central government is just as useless and incompetent as before, people *think* of themselves as members of the larger polity and so *they* pick up the government's slack voluntarily under no particular expectation of reward, just the general hope that their deeds will improve the general welfare of everyone. This is, effectively, Patriotism.

The problem is that this is a much more delicate system. It enables freeloaders. It can be taken advantage of by sociopaths. It can cover for governments' becoming catastrophically inept/corrupt. So it needs *strong* social institutions to deal with these things and, if they aren't maintained, the whole system devolves.

That's what's happening now. As we lose the ability to operate High Trust societies (which provide the most Good for everyone involved), "Anarcho-capitalism" is not a solution; it's the next level down. It is where we will have no choice but to go if we abandon our image of ourselves as part of larger polities (albeit for good reason).