sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Exception that proves the ruleI don't know how true this is generally. The Mafia count as a private institution, yeah?
But yeah Vimes's graph is facile. I think it's supposed to be but I dunno.
Exception that proves the ruleI don't know how true this is generally. The Mafia count as a private institution, yeah?
But yeah Vimes's graph is facile. I think it's supposed to be but I dunno.
Well, sure, they are different. But they're not irrelevant, which is surely more important in day-to-day life.There are substantial qualitative differences between "impossible situations" which the state is/could be capable of imposing, and the private sector equivalent. To deny this is to deny reality.
I mean I don't think the graphic is meant to be taken so seriously as to be taken as a claim of literal equality. I thought it was more saying that both were unacceptable to a (left-)anarchist, which they obviously would be.I don't think anyone has claimed they are irrelevant. Unless you count Vimes' graphic, which claims they aren't a thing at all.
But it does explicitly state there is no distinction between the two, so I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as such.I mean I don't think the graphic is meant to be taken so seriously as to be taken as a claim of literal equality. I thought it was more saying that both were unacceptable to a (left-)anarchist, which they obviously would be.
Nuance is the first thing that goes out the window when you go that far in one political direction or another.
Ah, but you're forgetting the far-left tendency to go "doesn't meet my own self-imposed standards, therefore terrible and therefore all the same". Cf every far-leftist approach to a modern election.But it does explicitly state there is no distinction between the two, so I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as such.
If I read it in anything but a literal way it comes across as a something written by someone on the right attempting to satirise the narrow-minded people on the left who actually believe the aforementioned literal interpretation.
Yeah, I guess that's kind of why I thought the thing could be a satire tbh.Ah, but you're forgetting the far-left tendency to go "doesn't meet my own self-imposed standards, therefore terrible and therefore all the same". Cf every far-leftist approach to a modern election.
At that point then they would surely become the state by definition? Albeit an unusually grim version from my POV. Imagine Facebook running a country.If and when corporations have a monopoly on force I'll accept their point.
IIRC the name for this type of dystopia is "Russia".At that point then they would surely become the state by definition? Albeit an unusually grim version from my POV.
Yeah, petrostates are a common variant of these. There are a few of those dotted around, I think.IIRC the name for this type of dystopia is "Russia".
Yeah. Basically shows that state size is pretty irrelevant to outcomes within any vaguely reasonable bounds. And often only nominal anyway. If the institutions are extractive it doesn't matter whether they're technically part of the government or not.Yeah, petrostates are a common variant of these. There are a few of those dotted around, I think.
basically my pointAt that point then they would surely become the state by definition? Albeit an unusually grim version from my POV. Imagine Facebook running a country.
I can buy food for someone who can't afford it, no such option in a state economy where we all starve togetherWhile fully state planned economies will fail to provide enough food and shelter for everyone, and therefore are not the solution, private institutions are happy to refuse you access to food and shelter if you're not productive enough. They're quite capable of killing you if you don't conform, just like state institutions are.