The first civilization arose in Sumer 6,000 years ago. Since then the government has expanded with each expansion of the economy and culture. The next 6,000 years will bring more of the same.
As civilization grows in complexity the government might need to grow to a certain extent, especially since the consequences of failure in a technological society are higher than in an agricultural one. Nuclear power plants, for example. We could go back to being an agricultural society like the Amish but some technology is essential for the enrichment of humanity despite its downsides, like information technology and space travel. Also, the survival of all life on earth depends on humanity being advanced enough to defend it from an eventual cosmic threat like asteroid strikes or solar flares. One possible solution is to have spaces outside of the government where people can practice being good citizens, such as the commons or civil society. Rudolph Steiner argued for a balance between the social, economic and political sectors of society
"Of central importance is a distinction made between three spheres of society – the political, economic, and cultural. The conviction here is that when economy, culture, and polity are relatively independent of one another, they check, balance, and correct one another and thus lead to greater social health and progress."
This feels like a fairly standard restatement of the liberal ideal of a society blessed with an active civil life. While we can aspire to this, merely being aspirational is not enough. We need an actual plan for achieving this. The growth of government endangers civil life, and so we need to think carefully about how civil life can be maintained in the face of growing government.
"Steiner held it socially destructive when one of the three spheres tries to dominate the others."
This much is obvious. It doesn't teach us much, because it is obvious. Everyone who writes on these topics are in agreement on this point.
"Steiner saw this trend as evolving towards greater independence of the three spheres in modern times. However now this evolution must be taken up with conscious intention by society."
Yes, but what does that conscious intention actually look like in practice? What does it mean when specified in fine-grained detail? It's not enough to simply state the overall intention, we also need to specify this in a way that is actionable. We know each democratic nation has a style of civil life that is, in part, enabled and supported by its constitution. So the question then is, in the modern era, what kind of constitution would do the best job of enabling the independence of the various factions that make up civil life?
I realize that disequilibrium is the primary state of nature and that equilibrium is highly unlikely, but striving for equilibrium, even if it's not actually achieved, is part of what contributes to progress.
Here I am unable to understand you. Permanent disequilibrium is the reality we live with. Even if the math is difficult, we should be pursing models that center on permanent disequilibrium, since we know that it is, in some sense, more realistic than equilibrium models. We are far past the point of diminishing returns with equilibrium models. Going forward, all real progress will come from the further development of permanent disequilibrium models, as well as agent based simulations. I offered some speculations on this back in March:
I mean that we should accept disequilibrium but also try to reduce it to a certain extent since too much equilibrium might negatively affect the system.
For sure, maintaining a vibrant civil society requires careful thought. Clearly, if we are going to maintain a free society, even as the government grows, we will need more independence of the various parts of the government.
Is it possible to have a vibrant civil society, full of organizations engaged diverse efforts towards improving society in various ways, while also having a society where the nearly all of the productive forces of society are controlled by the government?
There are some difficulties to consider:
1. who or what funds this civil society?
2. does government charity (social safety nets) get in the way of this civil society?
3. is the rule of law assured?
All of the above possible problems have an easy solution in the independence of various government actors. We've talked about the independence of the courts and the independence of the central banks and how those two institutions offer examples of the kind of independence we should want to foster for all aspects of the different functions of the government:
1. is the tax collection agency being used to punish political dissidents? The answer is greater independence for the tax collection agency.
2. is the justice department being used to punish political dissidents? The answer is greater independence for the justice department.
3. is the census bureau being used to punish specific races or religions? The answer is greater independence for the census bureau.
4. is gerrymandering being used to punish specific geographic regions? The answer is greater independence for the agency that draws the voting maps.
5. is infrastructure investment being targeted to specific politically favored regions? The answer is greater independence for the agency that decides where to invest infrastructure investment.
As civilization grows in complexity the government might need to grow to a certain extent, especially since the consequences of failure in a technological society are higher than in an agricultural one. Nuclear power plants, for example. We could go back to being an agricultural society like the Amish but some technology is essential for the enrichment of humanity despite its downsides, like information technology and space travel. Also, the survival of all life on earth depends on humanity being advanced enough to defend it from an eventual cosmic threat like asteroid strikes or solar flares. One possible solution is to have spaces outside of the government where people can practice being good citizens, such as the commons or civil society. Rudolph Steiner argued for a balance between the social, economic and political sectors of society
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding
Regarding Social Threefolding:
"Of central importance is a distinction made between three spheres of society – the political, economic, and cultural. The conviction here is that when economy, culture, and polity are relatively independent of one another, they check, balance, and correct one another and thus lead to greater social health and progress."
This feels like a fairly standard restatement of the liberal ideal of a society blessed with an active civil life. While we can aspire to this, merely being aspirational is not enough. We need an actual plan for achieving this. The growth of government endangers civil life, and so we need to think carefully about how civil life can be maintained in the face of growing government.
"Steiner held it socially destructive when one of the three spheres tries to dominate the others."
This much is obvious. It doesn't teach us much, because it is obvious. Everyone who writes on these topics are in agreement on this point.
"Steiner saw this trend as evolving towards greater independence of the three spheres in modern times. However now this evolution must be taken up with conscious intention by society."
Yes, but what does that conscious intention actually look like in practice? What does it mean when specified in fine-grained detail? It's not enough to simply state the overall intention, we also need to specify this in a way that is actionable. We know each democratic nation has a style of civil life that is, in part, enabled and supported by its constitution. So the question then is, in the modern era, what kind of constitution would do the best job of enabling the independence of the various factions that make up civil life?
I realize that disequilibrium is the primary state of nature and that equilibrium is highly unlikely, but striving for equilibrium, even if it's not actually achieved, is part of what contributes to progress.
Here I am unable to understand you. Permanent disequilibrium is the reality we live with. Even if the math is difficult, we should be pursing models that center on permanent disequilibrium, since we know that it is, in some sense, more realistic than equilibrium models. We are far past the point of diminishing returns with equilibrium models. Going forward, all real progress will come from the further development of permanent disequilibrium models, as well as agent based simulations. I offered some speculations on this back in March:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/permanent-disequilibrium-models-plus
I mean that we should accept disequilibrium but also try to reduce it to a certain extent since too much equilibrium might negatively affect the system.
For sure, people seek equilibrium. They cannot ever reach it, but they seek it. That is reasonable.
For sure, maintaining a vibrant civil society requires careful thought. Clearly, if we are going to maintain a free society, even as the government grows, we will need more independence of the various parts of the government.
Is it possible to have a vibrant civil society, full of organizations engaged diverse efforts towards improving society in various ways, while also having a society where the nearly all of the productive forces of society are controlled by the government?
There are some difficulties to consider:
1. who or what funds this civil society?
2. does government charity (social safety nets) get in the way of this civil society?
3. is the rule of law assured?
All of the above possible problems have an easy solution in the independence of various government actors. We've talked about the independence of the courts and the independence of the central banks and how those two institutions offer examples of the kind of independence we should want to foster for all aspects of the different functions of the government:
1. is the tax collection agency being used to punish political dissidents? The answer is greater independence for the tax collection agency.
2. is the justice department being used to punish political dissidents? The answer is greater independence for the justice department.
3. is the census bureau being used to punish specific races or religions? The answer is greater independence for the census bureau.
4. is gerrymandering being used to punish specific geographic regions? The answer is greater independence for the agency that draws the voting maps.
5. is infrastructure investment being targeted to specific politically favored regions? The answer is greater independence for the agency that decides where to invest infrastructure investment.