Anarchy (Ethical, Moral, Spiritual Progression) - Page 5

On January 02 2015 12:04 Spitfiree wrote: Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another. P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in

lol at calling others uneducated while citing books you haven't actually read yourself:

On December 31 2014 11:33 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is its not in our nature to be violent, we are only provoked to be so. I've heard ( well Bill Gates recommended it ) that this book explains pretty well on that topic http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1491518243

what's hilarious is that if you had actually read this book as I have then you would know one of the major reasons it finds for why people got less violent over time was the emergence of big all-powerful state ("Leviathan" ) with a monopoly on force, and how that changed the incentives. basically my argument is exactly mirrored in this book and i suggest you actually read it before responding again.

Nope im citing books i've read and i exclusively said i didn't read the one above, but it was recommended by Gates and the quote above is a guess. I've gone through Brand's book, I've gone through several works of Chomsky's best being a speech about the control of the masses through the media, I am going through Bernays although that's probably the hardest read in my life. You're right about the second part, you re way off on first part where lies most of your argument which is a casual guess gone wrong

Well and tbh Brand's book isnt something incredible but its pointing in the right direction and its a good start

i agree brand correctly identifies a lot of problems with our society. corporate influence on the political process sucks. moral hazard in financial risk taking sucked. it's where he starts to propose his own solutions of mystical revolution that things get full retard. chomsky is pointing out things that are wrong too, media influences, manipulates and serves powerful interests. nobodys arguing with any of that.

the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

On January 02 2015 15:37 Spitfiree wrote: Nope im citing books i've read and i exclusively said i didn't read the one above, but it was recommended by Gates and the quote above is a guess. I've gone through Brand's book, I've gone through several works of Chomsky's best being a speech about the control of the masses through the media, I am going through Bernays although that's probably the hardest read in my life. You're right about the second part, you re way off on first part where lies most of your argument which is a casual guess gone wrong Well and tbh Brand's book isnt something incredible but its pointing in the right direction and its a good start

you know that part in the movie "good will hunting" where they are in the bar, and they want to pick up some chicks, so one of the guys tries to impress her, and then some alpha-wanna-be shuts his friend down, and then matt damon comes on over like a bad ass and tells the guy that he has no original thought for the books he's read, he's just simply appealing to authority and can only regurgitate what's been feed to him?

anarchy can't happen. a monopoly on force will always sought to be had.

On January 01 2015 07:23 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote:   On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132 doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either. reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers. what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives. tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets.

It is absolutely ridiculous to refuse acknowledging a defense/GDP and try to say its total defense budget and that holds no weight since big prosperous countries have big budgets for everything.

Also in total military spenditure you will see that its not direclty related to prosperity as many prosperous countries have small armies and some with huge armies like China or Russia are not.

For the third time... why do you equate anarchy with unestability, before making these assumptions you have to explain in which way it would be less stable than in a society with a state.

It makes no sense to say say since human dont act ideally anarchy cannot be and then claim a goverment would, when this government is run by these same faulty humans.

On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

Is that so? please tell us how history suggests otherwise

BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

nice counterpoint
10/10 would debate again
much skill

On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon.

A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm

Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon. A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

What does anarchy have to do with corporations? unless you are advocating some kind of socio-anarchy which is ridiculous and just as narrow-sighted as regular socialism/communism

I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement?

I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population?

Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

On January 03 2015 02:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: [QUOTE]On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise What does anarchy have to do with corporations? unless you are advocating some kind of socio-anarchy which is ridiculous and just as narrow-sighted as regular socialism/communism

My perception of anarchy is full decentralization of power in current system and redistribution of it well (by saying well I'd say that ll be the hardest thing to do ) among people.
That's the core of it, all of follow ups like treating the planet better, investing in self-redeemable energy etc.etc. come as a result, and corporations have everything to do with it since they re the ones that profit the most from current system and abuse it to its full capacity.
Nobody wants socialism, I just want them to carry the consequences. Companies like Monsanto, Philip Morris, GSK are pretty much criminals and they re just on the top of my head. However you cant expect them to change atm considering they re paying governments through lobbying and campaign funding.
Whatever the change goes to you cant have someone abuse it to the fullest cause we ll just end up at the same place. Well Brand even suggested that those companies wealth should just be redistributed among their workers so they run the company, which is not necessarily a great idea, but its not a bad one, sounds like a communistic move( pretty sure thats how cooperations were done in Russia ) , however considering how the current leaderships are just blasting the population with toxic products and lying to them about it, then it doesn't sound so bad
Also as Drone said you cant have giant organizations amassing power

@Drone I don't think there are a lot of people that have figured it out fully. I used to think that revolutions without blood spilled don't lead to any results whatsoever. That's I'm guessing what most people think and its wrong. Historically speaking there aren't many revolutions that really worked, and most in the history books are just meh, they end up becoming what they went against, just named it differently. Gotta say that anarchy looks a lot like socialism, except there isn't the government to push you, which changes whole lotta things.

On January 02 2015 18:48 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2015 07:23 Romm3l wrote:   On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote:   On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132 doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either. reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers. what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives. tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets. It is absolutely ridiculous to refuse acknowledging a defense/GDP and try to say its total defense budget and that holds no weight since big prosperous countries have big budgets for everything. Also in total military spenditure you will see that its not direclty related to prosperity as many prosperous countries have small armies and some with huge armies like China or Russia are not. For the third time... why do you equate anarchy with unestability, before making these assumptions you have to explain in which way it would be less stable than in a society with a state. It makes no sense to say say since human dont act ideally anarchy cannot be and then claim a goverment would, when this government is run by these same faulty humans.

again, ability to defend yourself is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. ability to defend yourself is clearly more correlated with total spending than % of gdp spending.

anarchy being less stable than a leviathan state seems almost too obvious to have to explain but here's a quick try-
with no govt people choose between producing and trading ('cooperate' option in prisoners dilemma) and using force or fraud to steal the fruits of others' labour ('defect' option). Everyone cooperating leads to the best group result because total productive capacity is being maximally used and the benefits of specialisation and economies of scale are also fully realised. But in this state the individual payoffs to defect (use force or fraud) are enormous as there are no credible consequences other than breakdown of trust with counterparties, which human agents typically don't care about due to excessive hyperbolic discounting (short-term, instant-gratification mindset). In this environment larger scale organisations of specialised labour and trade become less and less viable because they require too many links of coordination, contracts and trust with no existing entity that can enforce contracts. More and more people switch to 'defect' in a repeated game where agents' strategies approximate tit-for-tat. The results are that overall productive capacity is utilised less and in a less efficient way over time.

History (explained well in Pinker's book: ) middle age europe was a feudal patchwork of baronies and fief principalities without any central power (this thread's definition of anarchy). Knights and feudal lords dominated peasants on their local turf and played zero-sum turf war games with each other for each others' spoils. Over time there was a consolidation of political units as more powerful users of force expanded and swallowed up more turf until one guy has control of the whole country. At that point knights causing violence and plundering becomes a nuisance to the king of the land because it diminishes productive capacity and state revenues, so it became in the soverign's interest to enforce the "king's peace" through superior force supported by superior resources (large tax revenue base funds armies with an expensive trained military force possessing gunpowder firearm technology and artillery). This changed the payoffs of the defect option and things generally got more prosperous and less violent.

Same thing in ancient China being a constantly warring bunch of patchwork states before Genghis Khan conquered and unified it all, and his descendants used their power and monopoly on force to form stable institutions and create prosperity over time. Kublai Khan's capital city was the best place on earth in its time and made big advances in technology and culture.

On January 03 2015 06:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement? I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population? Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

the abolition of borders doesn't really matter because most borders are based off of natural borders such as oceans, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc.. when we used to live in tribes and villages and maybe very simple city-states before the first real civilization came about, we used to tell stories as a way to indirectly guide the behaviors of the tribe. Gilgamesh is a good example of this, as it is simply a person going across the river (ie: border) and slaying his enemies. (the people on the other side of the border)

society will always naturally organize, we are after all only animals. we adhere to our social nature and that is for the weak to serve the strong. those who are able to influence people and get their ways through cunning or sheer force will always be able to have a real vote in how things go. might DOES make right because if you can't fight back, what right do you really have other than to die?

we'd have to be invaded by mind-taking-over aliens for us to ALL believe in baal's personal definition of anarchy and to live by it, which would still not be anarchy as the aliens are the one's with the monopoly on force in that case. fact of the matter is, with billions of people on this planet which is ever increasing, anarchy just can't happen. of course, there is always that temporary time when empires fall or nations have civil unrest, but as always, that's temporary. order will always be restored as it always has been.

On January 03 2015 06:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement? I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population? Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

Its not society free for hierarchy, its society free from the state, if you have a job, your boss will have hierarchy over you, but thats a choice you make, nothing is imposed over some bullshit implied social contract you have no say in.

It certainly is impossible to achieve in our lifetime, but isnt also end racism, religious fanaticism, war, hunger etc? and that doesnt stop us from trying, in fact its virtuous to fight for something selfless and for the good of mankind.

Anarchy wont be reached through revolution, we have had hundreds of those in our history, it will come from understanding and hopelessness, I once heard a good analogy about a bettered woman:

A battered woman wont leave his abusive husband out of rage, he will come home and take him back over and over believing he can change and it is not only when she realizes that violence is in the nature of his husband and when she no longer believes he can change that she will leave him.

In the same way, only when people truly understand what is the nature of government, and only when they lose hope that it can change that we will be able to simply walk away from it.


And no everything does have to be smaller, there will be big strong companies that could abuse their power... but the question is does the current state society prevents this? and the answer is NO.. if anything corporations are more powerful under the wing of the state, Apple has child labor, companies outsource to poor countries with shitty worker conditions and the worst company of all is the state, that is one that can abuse absolutely everyone with no consecuences.

Anarchy is not an utopia, it will be flawed because we are flawed, but its better than the structure we have today.

the nature of government is that it's made up of people, and people will always strive for order.

honestly, baal, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. you seem to constantly spout this idea that humans will somehow merge together on the same brainwaves and everyone will just magically start being good and moral, even though those are subjective terms which differ when you cross the river.

>hierarchy
>a job
>a choice
>social contract

That whole paragraph is a major what the fuck are you even trying to convey? if a company can be formed in anarchy, so can a government, using your own logic, since you say that governments are also companies.

Honestly, how the fuck do you even play poker with your backfuckingwards logic?

On January 03 2015 21:11 Baalim wrote: Anarchy wont be reached through revolution, we have had hundreds of those in our history, it will come from understanding and hopelessness, I once heard a good analogy about a bettered woman:

I'd prefer to call it a "revolution of consciousness ", anyways thats what i forgot to add. Historically almost every revolution has been violent and has not worked

>revolutions aren't the work of the govts themselves
>not worked

Revolutions can't happen without leaders. Occupy was the best witness to this, as they chose to be leaderless and then do their progressive stacks bullshit. It's way too easy to infiltrate an "anarchistic" society.

edit: oh wait, occupy did have some leaders, but they were also found to be agents and then the others had threats against them from the us govt. (if the released documents are true)

On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page.

Beyond that:

I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there.

One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking:

Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms.

Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere.

On January 04 2015 17:21 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same. Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page. Beyond that: I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there. One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking: Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere.

Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames have all done great things to deserve their honorifics. Since humans are motivated in part by wanting recognition and esteem, why not have devices such as titles that incentivise people doing great things? Whatever you have to do to become a Sir is surely better for the world than many other ways people might gain recognition, e.g. making as much money as possible and balling out of control, or beating up/killing other people.

Even the British royal family is +++ev for the world - they cost the british taxpayer nothing compared to what they bring in in tourism revenue, and if people are willing to pay for royal family related tourism, then that reveals they value it. Maybe a family creating an estimated 3/4billion usd/year in indirect tourism revenue deserves their title and lifestyle after all.

This post is mainly to show ideal solutions based on normative principles can end up being net worse in practice. One might accept pragmatism is better than idealism in the same way that one might accept capitalism is better than communism (or that anarchy would be terrible, lol)