You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
1

[–] Mylon 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It's simple game theory. Anarchy > state > gangs > anarchy. State is preferable to gangs, therefore we begrudgingly accept the state.

0
1

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What if the state is a gang itself, just one that claims to be justified over the other non-state gangs?

0
0

[–] Mylon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The state is a gang with (in theory) transparency and a known method of entry to have a say in how its steered. It has a lot of potential to be good.

0
0

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are you saying there is no stable/steady -state and that we're doomed to repeat history endlessly because every system has it's faults relative to some other and if we spend enough time under one we'll eventually forget the downsides of the others?

Interesting... Alternately (or additionally) are you saying something like the state is the worst system apart from all the others?

0
0

[–] Mylon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I didn't properly qualify my statement. Anarchy is preferable to the state because fuck da rulez. State beats gangs by being the biggest boys on the block. State is also preferable to gangs because (in theory) transparency and an open path to membership. Gangs beat anarchy by being the biggest boys on the block.