> I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive.
And when someone tells you "no", how do you respond?
You have three basic options:
1. Submit (but you can't submit to everyone saying no)
2. Take your toys and go home (but then your group will forever shrink)
3. Force people to say yes
The only good answer is (2) but that means some systems are simply untenable if they require universal decentralization.
4. "How about we have a conversation, perhaps if we think about it we can find a compromise that works out for both of us?" Note also that such conversations can even be had that don't involve the disagreeable party (if they're that difficult), but if they are of high enough quality and visibility (such that they can get public momentum) they can change the person's mind based on them seeing which way the wind is blowing.
4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. That only works for up to N parties. You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable.
You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian.
That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation.
But you can't solve everything with consensus, and you're welcome to play word games but forcing people is not "consent".
> That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation.
Very nice!
Can you give an example where "That which is may be that which is not" (with or without the "unless it is" part)?
And considering this idea: do any conclusions or interesting ideas logically follow from it with respect to our preceding conversation? I'm not seeing any, but the odds of my senses deceiving me seems high.
> But you can't solve everything with consensus...
Right you are, hence my lack of making that assertion.
> ...and you're welcome to play word games...
As you are welcome to engage in evasion and rhetoric.
> ...but forcing people is not "consent".
Right again, and I've made no assertion that it is.
This is a fun conversation, I hope we can continue it - perhaps we can drill down and determine where it is that you and I disagree (assuming we actually do).
I agree. I dont think all systems require consensus and its likely most things do not. When it comes to things that optimizes for survival, it is likely we will need consensus to be productive.
Consensus only need to happen when we are close to one another. Technology has the side effect of bringing us closer together.
I don't think technology has to bring us closer together.
I agree with you that the current default state is bringing everyone into the same sphere. I don't believe that is actually what we want.
I don't want to listen to every Bob's or Mary's political opinion or outrage take. I'm happy debating with a small group that has agreed upon rules (and excludes people who don't follow those rules). Likewise, there are plenty of political discussion groups that want to exclude me because I don't agree with their rules.
Technology should work to make small, discrete groups able to form while ignoring physical proximity.
And when someone tells you "no", how do you respond?
You have three basic options:
1. Submit (but you can't submit to everyone saying no)
2. Take your toys and go home (but then your group will forever shrink)
3. Force people to say yes
The only good answer is (2) but that means some systems are simply untenable if they require universal decentralization.