But government systems emerge in the same way that crime emerges, one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others. In government systems, the hegemony is obscured and even encouraged by those under the rule of the criminal. Yet, in no way is social utility greater than it would be without this criminal hegemony, regardless of the err in acting by those who support the hegemony.
So I ask you again. In what way can hegemonical extortion of the masses be a positive force for social utility?
" one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others"
Several individuals through voluntary interactions amongst themselves and with a sufficient group of the populace arrive at a governance structure, driven by their individual interests.
In other words in the pursuit of utility from the selectorate if you will.
I think calling it a hegemony is inappropriate. It's a selectorate, which necessarily involves compliance from a sufficient group of individuals in society (which will tend to involved a significant bulk of society, given the physical constraints of humanity).
So what you asking is how can extortion from a significant group of society be a positive force for social utility?
It can be a positive force for social utility if the selectorate is vast enough.
So essentially, your saying the more people that are extorted to the direct benefit of a tiny minority of society, somehow that increases social utility as a whole?
@peterjhendrick Nope. I'm saying the more people in society voluntarily involved in maintaining a coercive governance structure that "extorts", the less people in society will be extorted, so the greater the wider social utility.
Your baseline for social utility is assuming a given that people should be extorted. You're saying if people just learned to enjoy the extortion, then there would be more social utility than if they didn't enjoy the extortion. I can't argue with you there, since utility is directly tied to human enjoyment.
But your baseline is absurd. If we look only at the utilitarian argument, it becomes obvious that social utility is much higher without mass extortion, than it possibly could be with mass extortion, regardless of how many people choose to enjoy their extortion.
Well, you avoided my question completely.
But government systems emerge in the same way that crime emerges, one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others. In government systems, the hegemony is obscured and even encouraged by those under the rule of the criminal. Yet, in no way is social utility greater than it would be without this criminal hegemony, regardless of the err in acting by those who support the hegemony.
So I ask you again. In what way can hegemonical extortion of the masses be a positive force for social utility?
" one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others"
Several individuals through voluntary interactions amongst themselves and with a sufficient group of the populace arrive at a governance structure, driven by their individual interests.
In other words in the pursuit of utility from the selectorate if you will.
I think calling it a hegemony is inappropriate. It's a selectorate, which necessarily involves compliance from a sufficient group of individuals in society (which will tend to involved a significant bulk of society, given the physical constraints of humanity).
So what you asking is how can extortion from a significant group of society be a positive force for social utility?
It can be a positive force for social utility if the selectorate is vast enough.
So essentially, your saying the more people that are extorted to the direct benefit of a tiny minority of society, somehow that increases social utility as a whole?
What??
That doesn't make any sense.
@peterjhendrick Nope. I'm saying the more people in society voluntarily involved in maintaining a coercive governance structure that "extorts", the less people in society will be extorted, so the greater the wider social utility.
Your baseline for social utility is assuming a given that people should be extorted. You're saying if people just learned to enjoy the extortion, then there would be more social utility than if they didn't enjoy the extortion. I can't argue with you there, since utility is directly tied to human enjoyment.
But your baseline is absurd. If we look only at the utilitarian argument, it becomes obvious that social utility is much higher without mass extortion, than it possibly could be with mass extortion, regardless of how many people choose to enjoy their extortion.