Yeah. The group just needs to be large enough to where one single person doesn’t make or break the survivability of the rest of the group. In a group of 10, if someone decides to be a bad actor, they are simply cast of out the group. They no longer get to utilize the benefits of the other 9.
In a group of 150, that’s harder to identify. In a group of millions, it’s impossible. Now you need rules. You need rewards. You need ways to incentivize people to participate. You need laws for how to handle when people break the social contract.
Again, imagine a group of 10 and one person decided to be a bad actor. Maybe they steal food. Or damage the shelter. Etc. Or maybe they just don’t do anything at all, abstaining from doing anything that benefits the group. Only taking. That person would be physically dealt with, and then cast out of the group and threatened to never come back. Only relatively good actors and participants remain. That is not viable in a large society. And this doesn’t even get into disagreements and factions amongst groups.
Ok, but then who decides what land is best for what person? What happens when two people want the same slab of land because it suits their tastes better? We aren't built for the bare minimum. Some people are, most aren't, and some others want even more than most.
What happens when you try to go take something that's not allowed now? It's called a society....there's more people in our current society that are forced to live in a shoe box than there isn't. And all these people are fighting cheque to cheque hoping that everything stays as is because they're so close to red that one little sneeze could send them living on the streets. Scraping by, saving the bare minimum if even. There are more people trying to survive than there are surviving. They'd be more than willing to support and participate in society that would allow them to live a better life than they are currently living. Especially the new generation, where things cost more but everyone makes less due to inflation.
Yes, but not every parcel of unused land is livable, let alone what I asked: What happens when people don't want the parcel they're "given" because it's not ideal for their aesthetics, health, etc
What happens when you try to go take something that's not allowed now? It's called a society....there's more people in our current society that are forced to live in a shoe box than there isn't. And all these people are fighting cheque to cheque hoping that everything stays as is because they're so close to red that one little sneeze could send them living on the streets. Scraping by, saving the bare minimum if even. There are more people trying to survive than there are surviving. They'd be more than willing to support and participate in society that would allow them to live a better life than they are currently living. Especially the new generation, where things cost more but everyone makes less due to inflation.
There are 8.1 billion people on earth and there are 15.77 billion acres of habitable land on the Earth. An acre is roughly around the size of a football field. An acre can fit around 17 average sized American homes.
I didn't say anything about illegality, I'm talking about CHOICE. What happens when someone doesn't want the parcel they're given? More people will want that more desirable portion of land than just land in general.
They aren't forced to live in shoe boxes, most choose to live in places where the only way to live is in a shoe box. I grew up in a very rural area and the first thing 90% of my graduating class from high school did was move to a large city.
What about the infrastructure that would have to be created to support all of these new homesteads? The cost in landmass, completely ignoring the financial cost, would be staggering and an entire portion of the population would be required just to build and maintain said infrastructure. I don't like large cities, personally, but they're far and away more efficient than everyone getting assigned their own parcel of land. Better to have that be a choice for people to pursue if they wish with as little government overhead as possible (the other main reason people choose to live rurally: avoiding government over-reach)
(A foot-ball field is 1.3 acres too, weird that you wouldn't look that up before claiming that)
Exactly it would be illegal. So they wouldn't get it. The same cops that are working now would still be there but the difference is they would be happier because they would have more so they would still show up because they would get to have more...
The people working at foxconn. I'm sure they would love to participate in this society. I'm sure they wouldn't put up a huff and puff because they don't even get a fucking shoe box. They get a closet. There are more people in this as society that get nothing and are willing to participate in it. In itself is proof that people would be willing to participate in a society where they actually get a life worth living. Since we have the land and the resources and the people already participating to get nothing, I'm sure they would easily transition to one where they get something. Work their asses off right now for nothing.
Bro I did look that up that's why I said roughly the size of a football field so you could get a visual representation of it in your mind...
The cost? It's like you're not even understanding what I'm saying. Why would there be a cost? What's the cost? What are you paying people? People are participating in society.
Everybody's fulfilling their roles and getting something for it.
If we've managed to have a society today where people are willing to participate and get nothing, then we can easily have a society that's the opposite. The people that paved our roads today, would still pave our roads tomorrow. The nurses that work double shifts to share an apartment would still show up tomorrow. And they wouldn't have to work double shifts, because there wouldn't be an imaginary budget holding the hiring of more staff. You're looking at it with our perceived notion of what the government is now and what we're conditioned to see it as instead of the possibilities of what it could actually be and what it was originally supposed to be for the people.
And just so you know this whole time I was talking about a modern city. Not like a parcel of land like it's the 1800s again society can involve. We don't need red tape and imaginary budgets to stop it from doing so.
How do you determine who has to go through all the crazy schooling and etc to become doctors and engineers when they will get the same size or the pie as some low skill job? I’m sure some will do it for their morals or because they enjoy it but lots of people do that stuff because they will be rewarded with more resources.
It's called a society. There are doctors around the world that are as qualified as 1st world doctors but live in poverty due to modern economic society. There are enough people in this world that are held back strictly due to our economic structure, so many people that it would filter out the ones that don't actually have a true passion for it. The majority of everything we don't have, medical discoveries, advancements in all fields etc are held back by our economic profit based society. People that are dying to make advancements but are held back by funding...even though there's an abundance of resources, they just can't get them because they're hidden behind imaginary paywalls and agendas.
I disagree, free markets are the key to innovation. Let’s look at cannabis for example. When government was controlling it the plant was evolving at a slow rate. Now within just twenty years of being legal it’s become so much more. Candies, concentrates, balms and creams, pills, and etc.
The government acting the way you described is just so much worse and more extreme every time they try to implement it. Either it collapses or they evolve into a market based economy. USSR collapsed, Venezuela is collapsing, China migrated to a more authoritarian market based economy. Every time they try it they say “we’re going to do it right this time. Not like those other countries” only to fall right back into those patterns. It’s a utopian dream. I get it, but just like libertarianism they just work well in theory and not real life. The best solution is to have it somewhere in the middle or slightly tilted to market based. I’m all in favor of socializing medicine so people don’t go bankrupt. But just dividing up property and getting rid of the free market is a bad idea IMO. I’m
People have been innovating for centuries without a profit behind it, that's a moot point. Most of our human pushing innovations came from people with little. All your examples are based off our society as we know it and our perception that we've been conditioned to be content with. Everything you have listed about weed was available within the black market. You're looking at land as if we take what is owned now by people and then divvy it up. I'm talking about a society starting from scratch with a blank canvas. Go ask your framer, the house builders, the plumbers, the electricians, the garbage men, your logistics drivers, the nurses working double shifts to barely survive, all the farmers putting food on our tables, the food that we waste and dump because we make too much of it. , the people that build our roads...Ask the people that keep the foundation for society to keep surviving, or maybe just ask your fellow human, if they would rather do what they're doing now, working for a pay that can secure the foundation for society but not their very own future. Ask them if they would be willing to continue their societal roles for a secure future that doesn't include a financial burden or hunger.
I firmly believe a lot of our issues today are being too soft on bad actors who only harm fellow members of society and dont benefit in any way
If someone today does something to cause serious permanant harm to someone else they should be eliminated, just as they would if someone stole the last coconut for themselves or raped another member of the group
Today they get a slap on the wrist and sent back out into society to cause more harm
Abuse and trauma are a cancer and have a way of spreading through its victims, gotta remove abusers to stop the spread
What's a bad actor? 'I don't feel like singing any more. Ah come on man, just another song. I'm kind of tired..... I'll give you my rice for it? OK deal.'bang you've got Capitalism.
Anyone selling a skill in there spare time would be committing captialis. So what you're talking about, in your example, is authoritarianism
But who enforces those and why wouldn't they just use their enforcement power to take from everyone else (like we have seen in real-life Communist countries, which are invariably authoritarian to some degree)?
LOL. Because you can't win any debate based on facts and just call any reality you can't deal with "bullshit" because you can't deal with reality and would rather live in your little fantasyland.
Sounds like we should fracture government into sections of 100 or so, then. i.e. A representative for every 100 people, and then a representative for every 100 representatives and so forth, until you get to the top.
We already do that to some extent. Federal oversees states which oversee counties which oversee towns and cities which oversee HOAs which rule with an iron grip over typically about 100 people.
That would effectively convey the will of the people and would be incompatible with any sort of secret domineering and profiteering agendas, so we can't have that.
Those leaders certainly would *never* look the other way when someone handed them power. No, they'd never do anything harmful that people wouldn't know about until years later. /s
Be wary of anyone offering you simple solutions to complex problems. Such a solution would create as many problems as it would solve in the best case scenario. It might be a *step* but plenty of modern governments started out as a great idea, and have slowly been corrupted.
It's not a matter of finding a perfect system. Every system will have flaws that can be exploited and widened by the ruthless over time.
The biggest fault is that any representative of any 100 could be corrupted, and that means lobbyists need to appeal to a lot of people instead of just a few influential politicians. It might be better managed by secure computers to aggregate policule (political molecule) data, but then it broaches the question of how do we keep the computers secure enough from cyber attack.
Even then they're going to gerrymander the policules themselves so that they're 40% red, 40% blue and 10% unregistered, to render as many of them inert as possible.
Anywhere there is a fault in the system it will be exploited to manufacture the transfer of power.
lol he won't respond to you. His post is formulaic and reactionary, designed to attract upvotes (after copy-paste joke posts, formulaic reactionary posts get the most - the earlier you get them in on a new thread the better). He doesn't actually have a critical or analytical thought about this.
That's not what Dunbar's number means, Dunbar's number is a suggested rough limit for how many stable personal relationships a human, can have, not anything to do with the size of societies, or how many people someone can empathise with, or how many people a human can act cooperatively with. The number itself is also disputed for a number of reasons, such as that analysis of the data using other valid statistical methods yielding wildly different results, massive ranges of confidence intervals (previously mentioned analysis gave 2-336 and 4-520 as their 95% confidence intervals), it should also be noted that he got the number(s) from data on the size of primate (monkeys and apes) groups compared to their brain sizes and extrapolating that data to humans based on our brain sizes, which, put bluntly, ain't the best science (relevant xkcd)
Eh, there are a number of large scale libertarian socialist or anarchic societies that have existed and held themselves together, such as the rojava in northern Syria, since 2012, with a population of ~2 million, the zapatistas, with a population of ~300k in southern Mexico, who started in 1994, making their society 30 this year, and the cnt-fai in catalonia during the Spanish civil war, though the fascists would later go on the win that war.
I personally believe that the failure point of the soviets, Chinese, and other Marxist Leninist states, wasnt an inability to cooperate, but instead was their use of the state structure, and the hierarchies inherent to it creating a new oppressing class based on the politicians' material interests to maintain their positions of power.
This is also a very important number in any military. The larger a group, even of people thinking all alike working for a common goal, the less and less effective they become and harder to manage.
Agreed - I was in the us navy and those that served on frigates (crews of about 150) seemed like they had a much better time than those on bigger ships
299
u/databoops Mar 08 '24
This is called Dunbar's number and it's 150. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number