Things like FOSS stuff makes you think people can organize and work together freely to achieve a common goal, and maybe anarchy could work. But then, you see a busy intersection when the traffic lights go out and you realize the general public are idiots and everything devolves into selfish chaos as you’re stuck a half mile back, as cars shoot through in no particular order and you inch closer to the madness terrified to make your left turn. I have zero trust in society without some form of rule and order.
Think about a roundabout though in comparison, no lights or specific order, and there is a learning curve, but overall they reduce traffic better then stoplights under many conditions.
I guess my point is sort of extrapolating that a structure/presentation also heavily influences how users perceive or use a product/idea
Decentralization doesn’t necessarily mean disorganization. You can create a Lemmy instance with no moderation and rely purely on the community itself to self moderate, much like someone can create an instance with rules, and if someone disagrees with the rules they can create their own. Both are part of a decentralized system, so no one is actually coerced into participating in any system by regulation, just social pressure.
I find it a bit ironic that cars and traffic lights are being used as a metaphor for why anarchy won’t work. Let’s put aside that the example is of poor collective planning to build urban environments. Go to Vietnam and see how people drive without traffic lights, it’s complete madness. But it works, and in some ways it works better than what we have because the accidents are fewer and less severe while also serving more diverse modes of traffic.
That’s a pretty weak definition. “Legitimate” especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) “accountable”.
Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy:
The Constitution should be interpreted with “originalism” or at the very least venerated
Police sacrifice X, therefore it’s okay if they do extralegal Y
I’m not saying there aren’t systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It’s that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie “our founding fathers were smart people”) are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality?
I think I almost understand what you’re getting at. If I do, it’s uncodifiable. You can’t draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it.
Things like FOSS stuff makes you think people can organize and work together freely to achieve a common goal, and maybe anarchy could work. But then, you see a busy intersection when the traffic lights go out and you realize the general public are idiots and everything devolves into selfish chaos as you’re stuck a half mile back, as cars shoot through in no particular order and you inch closer to the madness terrified to make your left turn. I have zero trust in society without some form of rule and order.
Think about a roundabout though in comparison, no lights or specific order, and there is a learning curve, but overall they reduce traffic better then stoplights under many conditions.
I guess my point is sort of extrapolating that a structure/presentation also heavily influences how users perceive or use a product/idea
There is a specific order though.
First two exits use the outside lane, second exit or anything further uses the inside lane. Always yield to the inside lane.
Decentralization doesn’t necessarily mean disorganization. You can create a Lemmy instance with no moderation and rely purely on the community itself to self moderate, much like someone can create an instance with rules, and if someone disagrees with the rules they can create their own. Both are part of a decentralized system, so no one is actually coerced into participating in any system by regulation, just social pressure.
I find it a bit ironic that cars and traffic lights are being used as a metaphor for why anarchy won’t work. Let’s put aside that the example is of poor collective planning to build urban environments. Go to Vietnam and see how people drive without traffic lights, it’s complete madness. But it works, and in some ways it works better than what we have because the accidents are fewer and less severe while also serving more diverse modes of traffic.
The same is true when attempting to merge in the US. See Japan traffic as a counter argument.
Anarchism isn’t zero organization. It’s organization for legitimate and accountable purposes.
That’s a pretty weak definition. “Legitimate” especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) “accountable”.
Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy:
I’m not saying there aren’t systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It’s that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie “our founding fathers were smart people”) are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality?
I think I almost understand what you’re getting at. If I do, it’s uncodifiable. You can’t draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it.
Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today.
I don’t understand why that would be a necessity or desired.