This is a series of posts. You may
wish to read the other ones first:
1. "Dimensions of Government"
2. "Symmetries of Responsibility"
What I mean by anarchy is more like "creative freedom" than
"freedom from rules". Creative freedom needs a definition of
context to function. Much in the same way as you can't have
freedom of travel without traffic rules, you can't have creative
freedom of more than one people without a defined space and some
rules for the space. The rules could be very simple in theory.
Maybe as simple as saying that "sustained entropy is not allowed".
Creativity has to go somewhere, so anything that adds to entropy
in any scale or domain is going to harm the process. Some creative
destruction must be allowed, of course, because a taboo subject
is causing entropy by it's existance, since it becomes a blockage
to progress and exploration.
The reason I propose anarchy as a focal point in the dimensions
is because I can see the obstacles stacked in my way as a person,
and it might better illustrate the idea to others, since it gives
us more human-centered view of the situation.
I said that I would advocate for all bureaucracy lifted off of the
"little guy". My reasoning is as follows: Many people, myself
included, are not capable to cope with the obstacles put in their
way. These obstacles are often not relevant to the function that
the person is trying to fulfill.
Let's have some examples.
A homeless person is unable to work since he doesn't have a home,
a bank account, a shower. The person is healthy and fit for all
kinds of work, and might be very motivated to work.
A refugee is locked into a camp. In a very similar way as the
homeless person there is an unsurmountable obstacle keeping them
from being productive either in their new or old country.
A person with social anxiety is kept from work since she is not
capable of looking good in a job interview.
A person with dyslexia is kept from getting into job interviews
because they mess up the application.
A self-taught artisan is incapable of running a business since
he is not good at math or doesn't understand tax law.
A person with a small business in incapable from competing with
the bigger companies because she lacks the abstract thinking
necessary for the scaling.
With some of these examples, you may say that the person actually
has the keys to unlocking their progress. But I say these
obstacles shouldn't be there in the first place. If someone is
capable of producing something of value, an object or an
experience, they should be allowed to do so, and benefit from
their contribution in some way.
The homeless person is unable to find a home since larger entities
are keeping policy such that it is hard to find affordable
housing. A company has a lot of say on the matter but the homeless
are not organized as a lobbying power. In the same way most, or
maybe I should say "all", power is top-heavy, because if freedom
is not engineered into the system, it will not be found there.
The top has engineered their freedom in, and they are keeping
the bottom from having any.
The dyslexic might be a genius, but the education system was not
built for them, so they are left on their own. They may be able
to learn a lot throught educational videos, for example, but
you can't get a diploma from youtube, so it will be pretty hard
to prove you are educated.
There are some who will be able to rise through unconventional
means, but these are the elite of the weirdos. They have some
special combination of skills and traits that make it possible
to withstand the negative effects of their weaknesses. It may
be a good idea to see how they did it and imagine future
anarchic avenues built through these tentative paths.
As mentioned, anarchy needs structure. At the moment the anarchy
of the "currently unfit" is left boiling when they are pushed to
a lower level of success than their potential warrants. We need
tunnels upwards from this lower level of entropic anarchy.
