Iamadog19782364

We never really ask developing countries... If they want to be developed, do we?

I don't think it was learning to be more moderate, I think niche communities were pervaded with new users, which in turn caused a shift in culture and therefore later developed into new moderation policy. It's also been heavily corporatized as well, there are far less distal independent entities being a "big deal" and more centralization. But I haven't studied the patterns extensively and this is just collective anecdotal assessments of the shifts experienced from 2004 to present.

If you like the state so much why don't you renounce your citizenship in whichever developed nation you currently reside eschew your money, and ride out life in China? Maybe India? Vietnam?

There is quite a number of extant peoples who evince me otherwise. Mondragon corporation and Linux Foundation both serve as evidence against your position as well. You most probably don't have an example of a functioning society because you've misconstrued your definition of society to be exclusive to the design of states. But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. And I'd postulate given the wide proliferation of knowledge, the high literacy rate, the level of interdependence and so on of the modern era, that people are more able than ever to self-organize in a positive and stateless life to produce a far more egalitarian landscape and one with a greater deal of optionality to the participants therein.

And if I'm being frank, what I see peering over the modern landscape is that the state is little more than a puppet for corporate interests, protecting malefactors from retribution while allowing them in turn to exploit the trust of people that the system isn't stacked. More or less it's a dissolution of the rule of law that consolidates power into the state through that means, and producing what is more or less a completely unruly class which is allowed at length to exploit everyone.

I suppose you're arguing the Hegelian perspective, but I assert the apex of man or the geist, is precisely that which is described in anarchist utopian literature. It's also corroborated inexplicitly by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" towards the end. Failing to assert position that leads us to continued systems of oppression and a constancy of ennui within the zeitgeist, and a zeitgeist itself which is quite probably unhealthy as it inherits inertia and in being resistant to change it is constantly misdirected which we see everywhere constantly.

The author immediately contrasts the US, which itself is planned. Pretty silly if you ask me. I don't think there's a nation in the world that actually applies the liberal capitalist mode as Hayek wishes it to be applied. I would say because of the perception that America is the laissez-faire model, the culture of the US allows it to be further perverted while still maintaining the sheen of its laurels as a liberal state.