RE: RANDOM CONJECTURES REGARDING THE DESIGN OF SOCIAL NETWORKS. Part 1. ... [ Word Count: 2.850, ~ 12 PAGES | Revised: 2019.9.3 ]
"When speech is more and more controlled or censored, when speaking is restricted, the only means remaining to resolve conflicts becomes more and more violence. That is enormously undesirable."
This is the point of society undertaking support for association, which enables violence to be avoided, increasing productivity and availing civilization.
"those who would fight to prevent fighting recognize they could easily fight to resolve conflicts always in their favor even when they are wrong, especially when they are wrong, and then they begin fights rather than end them and there is nothing to stop them from fighting and the only production processes that remain viable are the shorter ones that can complete sooner than interruptions occur..."
However, we see that centralization of wealth enables specific associations to suppress others using violence, and this is apparent in the world today. There is an alliance between censors and warmongers that retards civilization and produces barbarism that depends on centralization of wealth, in turn dependent on parasitization.
Thanks!
Centralizers have essentially "windmills" built. Most of them don't care about anything that must be produced and does not yet exist. They typically only care about what already exists, was produced, and they can simply take from somebody else. They are, most often than not, typically because it's so obvious looking around, aware of the loss of productivity they cause, the amount of friction they introduce, but they don't care, because typically are actors that are not really production-oriented to begin with. They don't want much of anything that somebody must produce. It's the error science fiction writers often made when they assumed that even the most pernicious entities would still want to, for example, go into space. And that because they want that, they would have to make concessions to productivity, to get what they want. And that the world won't simply stagnate. Nope. That actually requires production, and as we observe in social networks as a model of the broader world in which they are embedded, those who already "win" inside a given system are typically the same actors who don't want anything more. So they don't care about productivity; the rulers of Rome did not especially feel any burning desire for computers, motor vehicles, toilets, and anything else that did not already exist. They had, therefore, no qualms about taking actions that further and further erode productivity, reduce peace. It's an issue that exists apparently within any social system. Even inside a distributed program. Not all actors have infinite wants, in fact. Productivity arguments for peace only appeal to actors that are not already satisfied with the existing state of the world.
Probably the subject of another essay.
Agreed without reservation. Individuals faced with parasitization by vampiric overlords and are degraded in means such that they poignantly feel lack are highly motivated to produce, and this is much of how centralizers increase their stake. However, decentralized means of production threaten the apple cart. I want to see it overturned.
Thanks!