I have a few questions regarding it, like what replaces areas where massively agreed upon things need to be determined such as radio standards for wireless devices, and what medical procedures are safe and effective?
I have a few questions regarding it, like what replaces areas where massively agreed upon things need to be determined such as radio standards for wireless devices, and what medical procedures are safe and effective?
So your answer is: a free-for-all on the spectrum.
The biggest and most powerful broadcasters, TV and commercial radio stations, have a strong interest in actively jamming their competitors' broadcasts. The same goes for mobile phone networks, it's in their interests to disrupt the operation of their competitors' networks.
At the moment, those activities are suppressed by authority.
Not really. My answer is cooperation on the spectrum. As you point out, its quite easy to make a section of spectrum unusable so non-compliance with a cooperative agreement is self defeating. You jam me and I'll just jam you back.
There could be, for instance, an industry board which distributes spectrum, with members acting as their own enforcement.
Again, the goal is not no government, its reducing down to the minimum required governance and heirarchy to accomplish that goal. A reallistic and workable system along those lines would in fact be highly ordered.
Its also important to note that one of the heirarchies to be minimizee would be class heirarchy. The naive view of anarchism is "no government", but thats actually quite narrow and most anarchists will agree that some government will pe needed, but with different form. The more full view of anarchy as a political stance is much more ecompassing and includes an ellimination of class and social heirarchy as well. So in a society where we have reduced coorcive control of spectrum, how do we prevent large corporations from ruining things? We get rid of them too.
Exactly. In radio frequency terms, this is the same thing as civil war. And we institute governments in order to prevent that situation.
See for example, the Seattle CHOP/CHAZ which very quickly descended into violence, ultimately ending in an escape to government and police.
The point is that this won't work.
At least in terms of radio spectrum allocation, that's what we have now.
This is nothing specific to large corporations. I can envision amateur radio operators entering into feuds or disrupting others out of spite or jealousy. "Ruining things" is normal human behaviour. Like the killers in Seattle.
I don't think we have anything like a minimal spectrum governance model. The entity which governs spectrum probably doesn't need to be the one that governs borders.
Fundametaly, the question, "in a society with a fundamentaly different organizing priciple, how would you solve problem x?" always comes down to "imperfectly, but hopefully better than the current solution<
I'm curious what you think is excessive?
They aren't really, they're distinct parts.
This is not a good sell.