[FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Well, the 2nd part of my response was the dynamic landscape. The equilibrium to which it [re]bounds to is NOT the same as the previous equilibrium. And, along with my objection to SteveG's use of "phase transition" in social systems, it's not even clear to me that any kind of *objective* equilibrium was ever reached in the first place. A very slow change can look relatively stable compared to a very fast change. And any such pseudo-equilibrium may well simply represent the abstraction *away* from whatever underlying mechanism continues to change radically, perhaps resulting in a kind of polyphenism.

All that's simply to say that it's not clear to me your analogy to optimization is very reliable. Anarcho-syndicalism is attractive because it *should* (but probably wouldn't) allow for a dynamic foam of non-equilibrium growth and shrinking of various interest groups, in direct response to the environment created by the other groups (and the actual, geo-rate environment). Social democracy approximates that diversity of group size/rate with large, more stable structures providing the effective equilibrium into which the smaller, faster structures settle and, perhaps churn. The trick is that social democracy enshrines some large structures which may turn out to be part of the problem. So, it might lack some dynamism that anarcho-syndicalism has.

On 9/14/20 5:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Ok, repeated unusually big wildfires or hurricanes would not be of the revolution type of perturbation because those are less coupled to a low-dimensional artificial control system.    Revolutionaries are just turning knobs in ham-handed ways trying to change a much more complicated system without really knowing what one is doing.   The system rebounds to an equilibrium.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ