Here's a radical idea. Countries could just stick to their own current land boundaries and work towards the betterment of their population. Crazy I know.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from druid@toot.wales
@druid
Would seem a far fetched, if not outlandish, proposal for some world leaders and their sycophants π«€
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
@druid Yes, what about taxing the wealthy people who live there and redistributing the money to create a better society while they are at it?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Homestead@mastodon.scot
@Homestead That 'almost' sounds doable. π
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from druid@toot.wales
@Homestead @druid That wonβt work for long. They control the keys to power, yes? Remove their wealth by force and they will no longer have those keys. I would imagine this would take some effort on the part of the people to make sure those in power hold their end of the bargain.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from enoch_exe_inc@mastodon.social
@druid it won't catch on!π
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jna@mastodonapp.uk
@druid what even are you a thinker or what?! πΒ―β \β _β (β γβ )β _β /β Β―
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Heliograph@mastodon.au
@druid @Heliograph
Not everyone has great land. Not everyone has access to the sea.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from teledyn@mstdn.ca
@teledyn @Heliograph That doesn't mean you can take it from someone else though.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from druid@toot.wales
@druid @Heliograph
Funny you should say that rather than "That doesn't mean you should HOARD it" which suggests to me your own personal bit of this earth is rather good compared to the rest. π€£
And with that, we get full justification for billionaires burning down the planet, because it's theirs, they bought it: Ain't gonna give NOBODY none of THEIR jellyroll!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from teledyn@mstdn.ca
@druid There must be a Mel Brooks quote of this kind of thing...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from undefined_variable@mementomori.social
@druid Including our next door neighbour!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from DynHafren@mastodon.world
@druid Quite Kantian.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dailingual@toot.wales
@druid
@BackFromTheDud
We should just do away with nation states altogether. Think about it. Really think about it. What positive things do nation states--with their borders and boundaries and murderous armies-- accomplish that humanity working collaboratively community-to-community absolutely could not do ourselves if those nation states were abolished? I'm wracking my brain and I can't come up with anything.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@philjreese
we need to keep the vexillologists contained.
@druid @BackFromTheDud
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from MxVerda@lgbtqia.space
@MxVerda
@druid @BackFromTheDud
Not all flags are bad! π΄ββ οΈπ³οΈβππ³οΈββ§οΈπ΄
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@philjreese @druid @BackFromTheDud what is your thinking on driving these distributed communities towards consensus on goals and actions? Some of us have βledβ distributed movements and are aware that there is no such thing as leaderless movements. Are we going to need consensus forming algorithms to guide us? How do you get factions to align? Otherwise, I see this heading in a feudal direction.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from suzannealdrich@hachyderm.io
@suzannealdrich All great plans fail to take human nature (and all that entails) into account. @philjreese @druid
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BackFromTheDud@mas.to
@BackFromTheDud @philjreese @druid I would love to see us figure out a way to do this. Itβs like βImagineβ by John Lennon. You may say Iβm a dreamer, but Iβm not the only one.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from suzannealdrich@hachyderm.io
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
Respectfully, Suzanne -- while I appreciate your comment, and don't doubt your experience -- I have to flatly disagree with your initial premise. Not all leaderless movements fall apart. Just those whose mission isn't clear enough. IWW is still going strong, focusing on worker organization and DASIT. I am also a member of an extremely effective leaderless organization founded in 1935 and stronger and larger than ever: Alcoholics Anonymous.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
Its mission creep, often, that dooms anarchic organizations to fall apart.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
But, to answer your question, small democratic communities self organize organically on their own all the time and always have. And those self organized communities generally all also have multiple limited and defined relationships and partnerships with other communities, organizations, and entities of different sizes, to accomplish trade or various mutual goals. No algorithm needed.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
Instead of seeing it as one community divided by factions, you can also see it as multiple communities working together in limited partnerships on some things, but not working together on other things.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
Obviously, when there is a shared resource like an underground freshwater table shared by a bunch of cities, or a kitchenette shared in a dorm, consensus on usage will be harder to get to. But organizations often fall apart trying to reach consensus on too much stuff that doesn't need it. The organization overseeing the watertable doesn't need to reach a consensus over what decibel
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
level is considered noise pollution. The kitchenette organization doesn't need to reach consensus on what the rules in the rooftop garden are. Just because a bunch of people live in the same place, not all are sharing the same shared resources, or have all the same needs. Our mistake is thinking "this whole group that shares this one resource needs to agree on all aspects of living or else. @suzannealdrich @druid @BackFromTheDud
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@suzannealdrich
@druid @BackFromTheDud
No just the ones sharing that resource need to agree on that resource and that's plenty big enough. There will be people in the dorm who have no use for the kitchenette. They dont need to be part of the consensus.
Its waaaaay simpler than we often make it out to be.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party
@druid It'll never catch on.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lopta@mastodon.social
@lopta @druid Unfortunately... At least for the time being!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from stormkeepergu@mastodon.social
@druid ah, but without territorial explansion, you'd have to find another, harder way to distract from the failures of your administration!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Yuvalne@433.world
@druid @tanyakaroli Obviously too difficult a concept for Putin to grasp
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from timrichards@aus.social
@druid share just enough sovereignty with neighbours so that common goals and ideals cross those borders amicably.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from daycoder@toot.wales This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini