Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
First, I have not said that complexity is a glory. The point was a quite different one, that there is, in comparison with past society, even less complexity in the actual world.Yeah, they were "different" alright. Women, for example, were obliged to obey their grown male children without any backtalk, and servant girls of course - - but we avoid examining the actual "differences" involved in that time of wonderful complexity.
If you want to examine such complexity in all its civilized glory, visit Afghanistan. Or Saudi Arabia.
This was enforced by their employers and neighbors and community headmen, not the State, so of course no loss of freedom for anyone was involved - by presumption, only the State oppresses.
The point is important, because the claimed increase of complexity was used as an argument to justify the regulations. If there is no such increase of complexity, the argument is false. If complexity is good or bad is, in this case, completely irrelevant.
But, yes, there are some aspects of complexity which are, indeed, reasonably considered as part of civilization. Rules of politeness, for example.
Of course, states apply their legislation also to things which happen in the net, and have also started to write legislation to control the net. But, no, it is not yet heavily regulated. Because what is forbidden in one state is usually allowed in at least one other state, so essentially the legislation tried by many states has almost no effect. Which is quite different from what happens in real life if some lobby has succeeded to write yet another regulation to make life harder for the competitors.The internet is heavily regulated, by States (including the government that invented it) and by the government established "technical protocols", and by the corporate interests involved.
The technical protocols have been written by programmers, not by politicians, at a time when politicians have not even heard about the internet.
All what I have "bemoaned" is the decline of education and politeness. And if you claim that science was instrumental or even crucial for the decline of education and politeness, I disagree.So on the one hand you bemoan the loss of religion, rigid social roles, complex forms of servility and abnegation, and the sequestration of learning to the rich and the (male) recipients of charity from the rich; on the other hand you refer with approval to an example of supposedly unregulated endeavor that was instrumental, some say crucial, in the destruction of those features you regard as the signposts of civilization.
Circular. You define the winner to have been the strongest group. And the winner does not always become the police - pirate towns, organized crime run communities, feudal operations of one kind or another, the militia dominated regions of the earth, do not need or want police forces.
There are, of course, situations close to a civil war, where police is not the strongest force. In this case, the state is named "failed state". The result of such situations are, of course, very different from libertarian ideals, because a civil war is simply a fight between different gangs who want to have the power.
A State is considered free by Charles Koch if the difference between what only the State is allowed to do and what Charles Koch is allowed to do is small.
Oh, the argument ad Hitlerum with a new person, you have switched to Koch. Seems, you really like such arguments.
By the way, Koch is so famous in the anti-libertarian propaganda because he is a rare exception. Usually the very rich support etatist parties - republicans as well as democrats.