LogFAQs > #965894217

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Crypto is better than traditional investments because of the lack of fees
ellis123 06/17/22 2:40:30 PM #32:	MedeaLysistrata posted... Economics literally means household management. The family or tribe is my best guess for the most fundamental level of organization prior to states. Tribes are self sufficient but societies are not. Hardt and Negri identify the multitude as being the primary actor, which is about as far from a centralized state as you can get.... A tribe is a state if it has land, something that would be very common when talking about the formation of basically every nation (in effect you have a form of the survival bias in that the fact that tribes that formed states instead of being migratory were able to survive the best shows the difference in efficacy), and a tribe always has a society (like, it is literally a subset of society as its definition... you cannot have a society-less tribe because that's literally what it is). As for Hardt/Negri... I can't comment about what they necessarily say but you are confusing the act of being centralized with the formation of society. By its nature a society has laws/something that binds those that live in it together and those laws must be largely agreed upon as a function of the society even happening in the first place (though whether or not they are actually followed is a different story... think of it like how murderers know they are committing a crime: they agree with the concept of the function but they are not following it). Thus there is some level of centralized thought that comes from society: it is a inalienable attribute. This bleeds outwards as, unsurprisingly, it is very effective in all acts of life to condense and thus you end up with the multitudes being the centralized state of which Hardt/Negri brought up. Whether or not they are literally the ruler in said state is irrelevant, things like the social contract give them just as much power as anyone else. It is why demagogues are a thing at all as the actual rules/regulations that exist are merely a function of society with said multitudes. Heck, we even have a current example of this with all of the Trump nonsense: if being centralized has no influence from the people then how exactly could his entire campaign not have landed him in the gallows? --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:965894217] in Crypto is ... [t:80060643]...</cite> <quote>MedeaLysistrata posted... </cite> <quote>Economics literally means household management. The family or tribe is my best guess for the most fundamental level of organization prior to states. Tribes are self sufficient but societies are not. Hardt and Negri identify the multitude as being the primary actor, which is about as far from a centralized state as you can get....</quote>A tribe is a state if it has land, something that would be very common when talking about the formation of basically every nation (in effect you have a form of the survival bias in that the fact that tribes that formed states instead of being migratory were able to survive the best shows the difference in efficacy), and a tribe always has a society (like, it is literally a subset of society as its definition... you cannot have a society-less tribe because that's literally what it is). As for Hardt/Negri... I can't comment about what they necessarily say but you are confusing the act of being centralized with the formation of society. By its nature a society has laws/something that binds those that live in it together and those laws must be largely agreed upon as a function of the society even happening in the first place (though whether or not they are actually followed is a different story... think of it like how murderers know they are committing a crime: they agree with the concept of the function but they are not following it). Thus there is some level of centralized thought that comes from society: it is a inalienable attribute. This bleeds outwards as, unsurprisingly, it is very effective in all acts of life to condense and thus you end up with the multitudes being the centralized state of which Hardt/Negri brought up. Whether or not they are literally the ruler in said state is irrelevant, things like the social contract give them just as much power as anyone else. It is why demagogues are a thing at all as the actual rules/regulations that exist are merely a function of society with said multitudes. Heck, we even have a current example of this with all of the Trump nonsense: if being centralized has no influence from the people then how exactly could his entire campaign not have landed him in the gallows? --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1