>One cares towards himself, his friends, his family, his values, his
>life, his society\nation\tribe, and it's *all* self-interest. It works
>fine in a tribe in which all knows all, but it can't work in
>metropolines of millions of people.
>Alienation is the problem of Anarchy, and in fact of all other regimes
>too. Democracy isn't stable when you have statu\etnho-centric lobbies
>within it which see for their own tribe's interests rather than those of
>the whole. Fascism speaks of the 'nation' as an entity of its own and
>Nazism of the 'race' in the same way. Both are popular because they give
>oneself a solid status in his own tribe.
This ties in with something I see as a potential stumbling block for the
society I'm trying to outline. Mankind traditionally lived in a tribe.
That tribe would have been small enough that its members were easily
recognisable, as were non-members. Our population densities and societal
structures now mean that each of us is a member of many different
tribes; where I work, what religion I am, where I live, national
allegiance, hobbies and interests, to name a few, all contribute to the
often overlapping, and at times conflicting, tribal bonds we host. This
has contributed quite positively to our technological development but I
suspect it also causes internal conflicts (any thoughts?).
In a self-regulating society the tribal multiplicity would, I think, be
even more pronounced (or at the very least, differently structured). How
much of a hurdle would reluctance to amend those mental structures be
WRT the formation of self-government?
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.