Decentralism, the meta-ideology of the future

[fine_clarity]

Currently, political ideologues (such as hard-line demicans and republicrats) are arguing and competitively voting over which ideology gets to control the various countries of the world. I believe that, in time, people will realize how wasteful all of that expended competitive effort is, and will realize that larger gains can be had with smaller

Comments

[dirkcjelli]

Anarchism has been slowly marching on since its inception (~1840).

[ripebastard]

Decentralism is inevitable but its not something that will be around this century.

Perhaps when technology makes it so that man does not longer have to rely on other man to live. (ie solar power, self replication technology, and or AI)

[divineaspect]

Ah, but that assumes that you can predict into or past a technological singularity.

[ripebastard]

I'm just saying, intelligence on earth is doomed if a singularity does not occur. (aka Dinosaurs aren't around because they didn't have a space program) Secondly, centralization does not work very well on an astronomical scale.

In theory, unless FTL communications is possible (I have my doubts) once mankind (or our successors) is beyond the solar system, centralization would be rather dubious if you are under the control of something that takes years just to send a message back and forth much less send in a force to actually back up that message.

But you are right... Since you cannot predict what is going to happen after the singularity, it might be quite possible that the laws of psychics as we know it have big gaping loopholes that we aren't aware of.

examples or evidence?

[divineaspect]

You say,

"The pursuit of centralized government causes wars and other conflicts, whereas the pursuit of self-determination causes peace."

I ask if you have examples or evidence.

Re: examples or evidence?

[ripebastard]

I suppose the best example would be the Free Cities of the Middle Ages in Europe and the whole elector system of the Holy Roman Empire. (say like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_L%C3%BCbeck... )

Re: examples or evidence?

[fine_clarity]

The examples are obvious and numerous, but I may as well post many examples, so as to eliminate whatever bit of ambiguity remains

[martling]

A decentralist world would certainly have some advantages. I am dubious, however, as to its imminent likelihood or sustainability.

First and foremost, none of the existing states seem likely to voluntarily donate physical territory. How do you see this changing?

Secondly, do you believe that a world composed of many small, ideologically disparate communities would be stable? Historically, this is exactly what we have had, and have seen each trying to expand and spread until we have arrived at the present world situation.

[fine_clarity]

"Historically, this is exactly what we have had, and have seen each trying to expand and spread until we have arrived at the present world situation."

The roman empire. Alexander's empire. Ghengis Khan's empire. The ottoman empire. Austria-Hungary. The european colonial empires. The Soviet Union.

Yeah, the past was real decentralized.

[martling]

For every single one of these example empires, you can identify the smaller states (or just scattered, unaligned tribes) that existed before its growth. Yet the desire of some individual or group to expand their wealth and power led to all of those being subsumed into these empires. This has happened again and again, which is exactly my point: why do you think it will not happen again?

[fine_clarity]

So what you are saying is that you believe that the current nations, unlike the old giant nations, don't consist of major groups dominating smaller and weaker groups -so you believe that major political parties do not rule the same nations that also contain political minorities, so you believe that people of minority political ideologies live offshore somewhere perhaps?

And what you are saying is that the weak nations of Bhutan, Nepal, Mongolia, and others, can not exist because they are next to a powerful nation like China (not to mention several other examples of weak nations next to powerful ones)? I assure you that those weak countries do indeed exist.

And you also believe that, by politically decentralizing, that will somehow make modern mutual military alliances disappear, like magic?

[bookhling]

While empowerment of smaller units of the civilization seem to be the general direction we are heading, simple decentralization is too problematic to be sustainable. There will always be pressing need for resources and energy which can only be solved by wide-scale coordination of different communities, and it is fully possible, some would even argue inevitable, that the organization put in place to sustain decentralized units of the world will work in favor of those who would pursue centralized system, whether it be centralization of information, government, or economy.

The decentralized nature of the middle-ages/renaissance Italy was the direct reason behind their fall from world wide prominence as the center of economy and culture of their respective era, as is evident from countless writings and documents we still have from that time.

Perhaps the sign of the times is pointing toward a whole new definition of governance that goes beyond the simple arguments of centralization vs decentralization.