>>216343>we are improving as a society
I'd argue the reason this is allowed to happen is because technology increases the quality of life as it's developed. This effect shouldn't be mistaken for the democratization of nations that happened near in time to the industrial revolution: technology can strengthen the slavers just as easily as ordinary individuals. The power of a tyrant scales up with the infrastructure he controls, particularly in an age where most societally impactful innovations are in the information systems realm. Democracy - or, by extension, any system in which the lives of the many are even taken into consideration - is only possible when their labor is vital to the power of the lord they serve, and moreso when the labor of each individual becomes more significant. This is why the black death paved the way for the formation of a middle class - a labor economy, but with fewer individual workers, placed more value on each individual worker's effort, giving each individual more leverage. When automation all but totally obsolesces the human element, there will be absolutely no reason for the ruling class not to genocide away all the lower classes who are not meaningfully contributing and just occupy space their own fiefdoms could be using.
>Anarchy doesn't require the absence of government, because who's gonna order people not to order people around?
Who's going to make any and all threats of violence, not only socially detrimental, but entirely physically impossible?
As long as natural innate differences exist between individuals, and they will unless we engineer humans to be genetically identical, there will always be those stronger than others, and those who are stronger will find a way to compel others to serve them for their own interests. History is mostly a broken record of the like happening over and over and over.
Why even entertain the idea that humans are morally above that when we have proof it's occurred so many times? What, do we chalk all the savagery up to environment and assume this all goes away once technology raises the standards of living? Because that hasn't stopped old and new money alike from using these infrastructures to retain their dominion. Yeah, we might be fine and dandy and cooperative when you place 150 or less of us in a nice padded environment with all the amenities we need AND assume a history that wasn't already indelibly scarred with the conquests of old lords, but that's just not the context we're working in, and I don't
see how the self-perpetuating nature of power would allow it to ever give way, in our lifetimes or afterwards.
There's a whole group of people who like to argue that technically humans evolved as altruistic creatures and that should be a basis for how our societies are structured, but frankly that all derives from our knowledge biology and archaeology, while meanwhile we have eons of recorded history that shows our species behaving radically different after prehistory. Maybe they're right, maybe we're not our genes, but regardless, the environment is marked with the scars of history and we can't turn the clock back to the stone age again without killing most people and removing all the redeeming value of life for most of the survivors.
There's also the problem that kin selection, the genetic mechanism that allows altruistic genes to not just get replaced by selfish genes in the first place, can't even happen without high genetic similarity, which means societies that actively preserve their own genetic integrity will last longer than those that don't, thus selecting for ethnocentrism in eusocial creatures.
If you try to build a society directly on a foundation of human cooperation, you'll either end up with an ethnostate, or your selfish genes outbreeding your altrustic and your society collapsing.
>So giving power and freedom to individuals, and avoiding massive power imbalances... basically it all comes down to the wealth disparity.Gg m8.