News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Do We Admire Mobsters? by tammer on Thursday September 17, 2015 @01:30PM (#10234807)
The idea that centralized violence is necessary for a "functioning" society is a common misconception. It's rarely discussed in political circles but we've got to remember that the state as we understand it is a technology, not some divinely ordered system. And as HNers should well know, something new can always come along and obsolete the old.

There are a number[1] of anthropological investigations into this (outside the scope of anarchist theory to which this tenant is integral) although they're fairly diffuse.

This is similar to the idea that a a voting majority is the only reasonable way to make egalitarian decisions. As anarchist[2] and non-heirarchical organizations (whether we're talking Kobanê or Valve) are illustrating, governing by consensus is a rarely discussed but viable alternative.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20ch... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

Re:Why Do We Admire Mobsters? by lifeformed on Thursday September 17, 2015 @01:59PM (#10235009)
Are there any proposed systems in which a billion person society can function without centralized violence?
Re:Why Do We Admire Mobsters? by Kalium on Thursday September 17, 2015 @02:25PM (#10235192)
There are many such proposed systems. A better question is if there are any such proposed systems that aren't silly and predicated an a refusal to understand human nature.

I know a number of communists and anarchists who seem to believe they can just wish away aspects of primate psychology.

Re:Why Do We Admire Mobsters? by PJDK on Thursday September 17, 2015 @04:19PM (#10235801)
I can believe a small group can exist as a collective without violence for a while (maybe a long while), but how can any such group deal with a member that decides to use violence to get their way? Either that person becomes leader, the group organises to stop them with violence or the group dissolves.

And I don't think even such a temporary arrangement can scale much above Dunbar's number.