Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Price of Anarchy

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#51

Post by di4na »

throwaway729 wrote: post #48
dunslandsboo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...

> ...as they would like it to become... Friendly society... DRO... I think this has always been my primary gripe with ancap -- it's Utopian. And all Utopian thinking has the same problem -- it's either irrational, or very rational but starting from very strong axioms. Ancap writers, to their credit, tend to care a lot about crafting strong, rational arguments. When I think about ancap (or any political theory that se…

Well welcome to nearly all political theory. There is a reason we are still stuck with some fairly well known different systems for all these years.

Human bahaviour is the same so far. And saying that we need to modify human behaviour to make it "better" is a complex road too... The thing is, we tryied to did it with the widespread education of since the 50s, with a more or less loose objective and set of policies, implemented differently in different countries.

We now have more data than ever... But can we really shape our future toward something that help our species to survive?

I think that it is the big hole in the set of goal that Elon Musk set for himself, and it talks also a lot to the goals that sama want for YC. How do we educate, teach, create opportunities, so that humanity keep going or have the tools to overcome what is to come...

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#52

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

wodenokoto wrote: post #6

Isn't libertarian thinking (put very heavily on the edge) the exact opposite? That a system will become more efficient if actors are let to do things for their own sake, and that actors are smart enough to calculate the negative impact of short term selfish action (that is, actors can help out now, with an exception of a positive roi)

Libertarian thinking actually permits multiple people to agree to not take the most immediately greedy action and to instead voluntarily agree to a mutually-beneficial optimal solution.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#53

Post by notzorbo3 »

boona wrote: post #40
antocv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist? Like up-down?

As far as I can tell it's the only consistent form of anarchy. For instance in discussions with anarchy-communists, if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of production. The communists I've talked to believe that there would be some public police force. When asked how any decision woul…

> if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of production.

This is a very wrong view of communism. If the communists you've talked to have told you that this is what communism is, then I'd very strongly advice you to consult some introductory texts on communism.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#54

Post by quirkafleeg »

antocv wrote: post #36
dunslandsboo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most anarcho-capitalists that I know and from who I learn are absolutely not about "every man for himself" at all. Charity and voluntary cooperation are major parts of the society as they would like it to become. See https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Friendly_society and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organizatio...

Doesnt that seem like an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalist? Like up-down?

"Anarcho-capitalist" was coined by Murray Rothbard, who himself was finally forced (by reality) to admit that:

    we are not anarchists, and that those who
    call us anarchists are not on firm etymological
    ground, and are being completely unhistorical
Unfortunately the internet gives voice to lots of people who don't let facts get in the way of their opinions.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#55

Post by monocasa »

snrplfth wrote: post #45
ue_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of product No. That's personal (not private) property. The MoP are manned by labour supplied by the proletariat. If you are having people working with that widget maker (aside from yourself), and you are paying them wages (or slavery), then it q…

But if people can freely organize themselves into collectives or communes, then some of those collectives will be more successful than others, and without mandatory redistribution, you'll have inequality again. Also, if people can leave collectives, then inevitably there are going to be collectives with few or only one single member left, and you're back to individual ownership.

If that 'collective of one's legitimately only needs one worker, then that isn't a problem. If someone else joins him later then he has to share the MoP.

I fail to see the logical inconsistency.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#56

Post by throwaway729 »

snrplfth wrote: post #45
ue_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I were to develop a machine that manufactures widgets in my spare time at home, that machine would have to be seized since communism is the public ownership of the means of product No. That's personal (not private) property. The MoP are manned by labour supplied by the proletariat. If you are having people working with that widget maker (aside from yourself), and you are paying them wages (or slavery), then it q…

But if people can freely organize themselves into collectives or communes, then some of those collectives will be more successful than others, and without mandatory redistribution, you'll have inequality again. Also, if people can leave collectives, then inevitably there are going to be collectives with few or only one single member left, and you're back to individual ownership.

A lot of communists posit that capitalism (and perhaps in some cases statism) cause and/or arise from something kind of resembling a mental illness. Marx's "Alienation" and especially Delueze's "Desire" have this flavor. I think this is one reason why there's a whole brand of communism that's closely tied to Freudian/Lacanian style psychology.

That psychological aspect usually plays some role in transitionary theories for certain brands of communism, especially anti-statist brands. Although nailing down exactly what role it's supposed to play is usually pretty difficult, it's fair to say that the answer to your question would -- for a lot of anarcho-communists -- boil down to something related to these psychological theories.

This post may sound uncharitable to those communists. And I don't agree with their theories. But I also think that their work contributes something very important to discussion of fringe political theory:

Flipping a psychological switch in the minds of the masses is an absolute pre-requisite for most anarchist theories.

IMO that includes anarcho-capitalism. The communists at least recognized this way earlier than everyone else and are very careful about identifying psychological theories that match well with their sociological theories.

We can argue whether psychological switch-flipping is a realistic expectation -- I'd argue not. But any time I read political theory, I try to identify where the author invokes a form of switch-flipping. 99% of the time the author just makes overly charitable assumptions about human psychology -- that's usually the case in mainstream politics. Communists sometimes have some Freudian psycho-analytical flavored theory. Anarcho-communists like Molyneux prefer weird pseudo-logical reasoning about moral axioms.

Implicit assumptions of switch-flipping show up in mainstream politics as well (IMO "drain the swamp" and "black lives matter" both make implicit assumptions about switch-flipping that under-estimate the stubbornness and importance of human psychology...)

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#57

Post by danharaj »

greggyb wrote: post #50
ue_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to say that everyone acts entirely for themselves, with no action motivated by kindness. I mean to say that in a sytem with multiple people trying to do the same thing you are doing (selling for a profit), you'll have to compete with people with various moral standards and ways of getting their profit. This kind of system, I believe, eventually forces out those who are not "aggressive" enough with their…

> ...the fact that capitalism requires ever higher and higher returns. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production. Ever higher and higher returns are a result , so far, of capitalism.

I guess all those colonial wars and government interventions to build and prop up industries never resulted in higher returns. Capitalism is most certainly not just private ownership of the means of production. That is too reductionist. That is like saying biology is chemistry. Technically true, but misses the point.

Because the means of production are held privately there is a class distinction between owners and workers. Owners derive their profit from the labor of their workers. Workers want to work less for higher wages, owners want the opposite. This becomes the locus of class struggle. Because all society now responds to the needs of capital, the superstructure and the state come to serve primarily bourgeois(owners) class interests.

Considering how many wars and coups have been fought to forcibly introduce capitalism into other countries and forcibly extract their resources and labor, to say that private ownership results in higher returns is almost offensive in how it elides the emergent dynamics of capitalism.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#58

Post by pyrale »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49
pyrale wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anar-caps have always been separated from anarchists. I don't know why they took this name -they were in quite an identity crisis about it [1]-. A better name could be stateless capitalists. [1] Murray Rothbard, "Are libertarian anarchists" : https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists

Actually anarcho-capitalism permits anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, and mutualist enclaves (in addition to any voluntary organization) within of a polycentric legal order. It is the most inclusive variety of anarchism.

Anar-caps permit any other form of anarchism - provided you own land.

Statism permits any other form of government - provided you pay taxes and respect the law.

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#59

Post by RodericDay »

snrplfth wrote: post #37
AimHere wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is that the society might be apparently permissive, at least to those who live in it, but there are parts that aren't (such as those two examples), and people don't generally recognize them as such.

But the comment he was responding to said "humans in more permissive societies habitually live in relative harmony even more than those in less permissive ones." So the fact that, upon trivial examination, a society is revealed to not actually be that permissive, is not evidence against the assertion that permissive societies are harmonious. I mean, I don't think RodericDay was saying that those two examples were imp…

Parent post said:

> One might suspect that all our beneficial habits would break down if there weren't an almighty parental figure lying in wait to punish us

I interpreted this in the vein of a libertarian "we don't need a nanny state". And so I assumed that the person was thinking of the USA as a "permissive society in harmony" and of something like North Korea as an "less permissive society in disarray", as opposed to Sweden as a "less permissive society in harmony".

And so I wanted to challenge the notion that the USA is "permissive".

Re: The Price of Anarchy

#60

Post by madmaniak »

grive wrote: post #39
madmaniak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your reply. "Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit" My impression is that's what most people here are discussing. I can see a definition of an anarchy in your quorum example, can't you? But you say we could have AI which will find a balance. Interesting concept. Does it imply obeying AI obeying the law?

Well, the quorum could be organized in any matter of way. Expected a consensus for a decision would be akin to anarchy indeed, however there could always be some kind of recursive hierarchy, with another sub-committee of higher authority that would make other units diverge. (Parties within an assembly, with deputies having to follow their party lines). This quorum could also be tied to following the interest of the m…

Well yes, I am obeying the law of gravity :D Is your point, that AI could replace human will?
Post reply on HN