pull down to refresh
We should agree that the NAP is a desirable underpinning to any system.
But the NAP doesn't mean non-violence, simply that violence is just. Systems becoming unjust is inevitable, that's universal cyclicality present in everything.
reply
This is a thoughtful statement. I agree with it, and I think I probably need ot think about it for a while.
This is something I also believe. However; even if we use this lens, we can question whether a mob functions better or worse when it starts to use restrictions on mobility as a tool to encourage repayment of debt.
However: while the mob may do a bang up job enforcing a culture of not skipping out on your debts, it is also possible that they do a bunch of stuff that we all kinda of agree sucks (demanding protection money when it is entirely unwarranted or just deciding to use violence against people that threaten them in some way).
Seems like humans have been trying to figure out how to set up our government-mobs in ways that limit abuses by the mob against its people or by a foreign mob. Democracy and Republicanism may be an example of a somewhat successful attempt at this.
Ostensibly, the King George mob so overplayed its hand that the colonial people set up a new mob called the US and this mob was more effective than the King George mob partially because it claimed to listen to its people a little more or in different ways. It may have achieved this gain in effectiveness because it offered guarantees to its people that the mob wouldn't do certain things to them. It even wrote this down so we could all check on it.
Great. So now we're discussing whether or not our mob will retain its effectiveness if it restrains its people's ability to move around based on financial debts.