So, im seeing some of those as desirable.
Accreditation and guilds serve to train workers, gather wisdom, and spread the standards wisdom brings.
Of course, no coercive traits would follow them from the old paradigm, but learning trades will have to happen somewhere and be taught by somebody.
Leadership is staying because id much rather be led into dismantling a nuclear sub than figure it out on my own as i go.
Not to equate a leader with a boss.
Culture developes from living together.
The rest of them i can do without.
Wow, that's a long ways to go in the span of a day or so. Honestly, when I started processing the model, it took me months to really shake them out of the model.
As far as accreditation and guilds, these often become barriers to entry into different fields. I understand why they are viewed as important. It's the social constructs that make them a problem. Like the association of having a piece of paper, makes someone, somehow better at a task than another. It only means they went through some measure of training or competence testing.
If the guild or accreditation is used to exclude perfectly able people that have the capacity to perform those tasks, then the values are somewhat artificial. It is used as a mechanism to produce artificial scarcity and dependence on the social construct that provides it. Note that this can even happen in socialized constructs, in that the 'director' involved can artificially reduce the numbers of workers that can do a task, to make their own social construct more valuable than it would/should be.
I recognize it is a complicated subject, and other folks have probably written better and more thorough explanations than I have here.
I would rather people who had no leader and no devotion to social constructs disassemble the sub, because there would be no other agenda than dismantling the sub in a manner that everyone survives it. Plus what would be the cost of having a terrible leader directing the dismantling a sub....I think we can figure it out ok, especially if we know there isn't someone blindly pushing us into tragedy.
I'm not completely convinced that culture doesn't lead to war, maybe time will rest my conscience.
I guess i dont follow.
I just think those listed will be difficult to get the people to let go of.
If i have a sub to disassemble id sure want to look into the background of the ones doing the work.
Guilds facilitate that, though the blockchain could just as well.
I agree that artificial barriers need to come down, but if i am responsible for dangerous work i dont need somebody saying they can when they havent ever done it before.
Id want that from my barber, too.
A culture that values violence, domination, and warriors over less macho pursuits, such as ours, certainly would lead to war.
I hate it when i see parents pushing their kids to play fight.
Fighting aint playing.
Life isnt the wwe.
Yeah many people are born with a desire to plug into them.
I wouldn't much care what breaks up the social constructs of guilds, as long as it doesn't form another, or similar construct that creates the scarcity, and would allow capable people to do what they can.
I think rule by force is the disease, who does it how is secondary.
If we can get that off the table most of these conflicts end themselves.
https://steemit.com/zad/@submedia/2ahvplv5
Ending rule by force is the big step. Many social constructs have considerable potential to backslide into use of force. They will always cast a shadow.
Thats why rejecting rbf would result in a paradigm change.
Who knows what happens when a kids first lesson in life isnt do it or violence?
That has not existed culturally in many places.
Small pockets, but not worldwide.
Indeed, small outposts of peace and freedom in a insane world.
It's about the best that can be done in the here and now.