Institute for the Study of Decentralization
« Preventing genocide in a decentralized order »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 9, 2010, 7:09pm

[Home] [Help] [Search] [Login] [Register]



Institute for the Study of Decentralization :: General :: Positive Issues :: Security and Defense :: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
Page 1 of 2 » Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread][Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
AuthorTopic: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order (Read 140 times)
Danny Shahar
Administrator
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 31
Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Thread Started on Dec 16, 2008, 11:53pm »
In today's environment of somewhat decentralized state sovereignty, we see that human rights abuses and genocide often go unaddressed, sometimes resulting in the uncontested brutalization and murder of millions of people. States are often accused of putting their own interests ahead of those of others, to the point of standing by as others commit atrocities against defenseless victims.

In more centralized environments, however, (where citizens are not being brutalized and murdered by their governments, which is another story) we find formal mechanisms for dealing with these kinds of problems. Must advocates of decentralization insist that there is nothing wrong with the absence of such mechanisms, or that their proposed alternative would simply be as bad as the current system and not worse? Is there some reason to believe that a more decentralized society would be better equipped to deal with genocide and human rights abuses?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #1 on Dec 17, 2008, 4:53pm »
It would depend on what is meant by 'decentralization'. The continuity, 'size' and 'concentration' of power as well as what relative powers are possessed by any given state are not at all clear. It is not often clear where one state begins and another ends.

The act of 'genocide', which is itself a rather vague notion in modern times, is for the most part possible because of the concentration of resources and legitemacy of the 'genocider', be it the Politburo or Parliament. The division of sovereignty can be seen as ways to reduce individual legitemacy and thus this command, but the multitude of sovereigns each have the legitemacy of power and the presumed drive for more. Many states are coopted into larger states more or less willingly. The critical issue to the power of a state, especially over a minority of unpopular persons, depends on the legitemacy given to those both under and outside the dominions of the State itself. An increasingly decentralized world might improve it, but I think this is contingent upon several other factors. Those who seek a Neo-Feudalism (or 'anarcho-feudalism') to avoid the problems of centralized states consistently overlook the fact that relatively small areas, even rural ones, have higher population than entire duchies in the middle ages.

The social dynamics of modern decentralization are very dissimilar from those of the past. Perhaps the concentration itself is what allows 'genocide' to go on, the fact that the passive majority will outnumber the unpopular minority, even if that minority numbers in the millions. It seems to me that the solution to the problems of power by geographic rearrangements and reallocations is just as hopeless as the attempt to use Constitutional limits and procedural divisions. After all, for thousands of years tiny states often made up the majority of real political power across much of the world and yet genocide was an omnipresent feature of every continent and every age.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Danny Shahar
Administrator
*****
member is offline

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 31
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #2 on Dec 17, 2008, 9:55pm »
You seem to suggest that genocide is a natural part of human civilization, but it seems like we should be concerned with bringing about an end to this condition, no? I agree that genocide is usually inflicted by individuals with formal power on those without it, and that it has persisted through a range of different forms of social organization, but does that mean that we should simply accept it as a fact of life? Is there no merit to the idea that we should strive towards a world where genocide is an appalling historical mystery?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #3 on Dec 18, 2008, 12:59am »
I dislike terms like "genocide" which seem to assume some sort of collective being that is assaulted. "Genocide" is merely the murder of a large number of people, who happen to be similar in some way (be it race, religion, location, whatever). As such, we should treat it no differently than any other type of murder - the only people who can legitimately get involved are the heirs of the victims and the legitimate agents of the victims and their heirs.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #4 on Dec 18, 2008, 2:37am »
You seem to suggest that genocide is a natural part of human civilization, but it seems like we should be concerned with bringing about an end to this condition, no? I agree that genocide is usually inflicted by individuals with formal power on those without it, and that it has persisted through a range of different forms of social organization, but does that mean that we should simply accept it as a fact of life?

I simply think that decentralizing political legitimacy is not a valid solution, nor does it have long-term stability.
As such, we should treat it no differently than any other type of murder - the only people who can legitimately get involved are the heirs of the victims and the legitimate agents of the victims and their heirs.

Genocide is like war or politics, on the individual level of course it's essentially like any violent conflict but there are certain elements that arise in systematic policies that give a different character to its overall impact.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #5 on Dec 18, 2008, 2:51pm »
But why does this change the proper way for third parties to act in response to it?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #6 on Dec 18, 2008, 5:25pm »

Dec 18, 2008, 2:51pm, morty wrote:
But why does this change the proper way for third parties to act in response to it?

I'm not sure it's clear there is a proper way. Servility is the cause, genocide is only a symptom.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #7 on Dec 18, 2008, 5:55pm »
You don't think that, from a third party perspective, there is a right and a wrong way to react to murder?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #8 on Dec 18, 2008, 7:54pm »

Dec 18, 2008, 5:55pm, morty wrote:
You don't think that, from a third party perspective, there is a right and a wrong way to react to murder?

There's no such thing as a 'third party' perspective on matters of value and propriety.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #9 on Dec 18, 2008, 10:59pm »
What would you call the perspective of someone who is not the criminal nor the victim? That's what I'm referring to.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #10 on Dec 22, 2008, 11:30pm »

Dec 18, 2008, 10:59pm, morty wrote:
What would you call the perspective of someone who is not the criminal nor the victim? That's what I'm referring to.

The same as anyone else's perspective. One does, or does not, approve. Whatever basis this judgment rests upon it is ultimately nothing more than a matter of taste, habit and genetics.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #11 on Dec 23, 2008, 2:48am »
So, there is no difference between being a victim, an aggressor, or an uninvolved party? All things are merely matters of opinion? Like, it might be the opinion of the people being killed that such is not good, but equally it could be the opinion of the killers that their murders are good, so it doesn't really matter?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #12 on Dec 24, 2008, 8:16am »

Dec 23, 2008, 2:48am, morty wrote:
So, there is no difference between being a victim, an aggressor, or an uninvolved party? All things are merely matters of opinion? Like, it might be the opinion of the people being killed that such is not good, but equally it could be the opinion of the killers that their murders are good, so it doesn't really matter?

This is the the funny absurdity of people who feel a 'moral' basis is exists and is 'necessary'. The fact is that property-tort law are amoral historical successes, and unlike moralists I don't need some nonsensical 'justification' to prefer civilization to barbarism. I don't need to call a violent robber 'evil' to have a need to shoot him. I do it because I want to keep my property. If people can't adapt themselves to civilization, then too bad for them.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
morty
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #13 on Dec 24, 2008, 11:43am »
Right, so, really, we shouldn't say anything about genocide, it's simply progress, right? Property is being realigned. Ignore the "moralists" who complain of the wholesale slaughter - we should only curse our poor luck in not being able to get there first to take this easily acquirable property.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
rjmii
Junior Member
**
member is offline

[avatar]

Joseph Schumpeter



Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Re: Preventing genocide in a decentralized order
« Reply #14 on Dec 24, 2008, 4:27pm »
You can say whatever you want about genocide, like you can say anything you want about traffic regulations or cake toppings, but there is nothing 'objective' about it.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Page 1 of 2 » Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread][Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

Google
Webdecentralize.proboards.com
Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free


This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!