Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000) • Hacker News Board

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#101

Post by ctrlp » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

avereveard wrote: post #7

what a bunch of bad examples. I (used to, pre-covid) see daily plenty people cutting bus lanes, so these exist, and what you going to do to protect society from them? even a stern look is not the anarchist way. most sport teams have a captain and a trainer and most volunteer forces are under supervision of more experienced staff around here. sure they don't strictly command the squad, but they're the one responsible…

The standard reply is that social pathologies are caused by a pathological system. In that way it's not much different than Marxist apologetics. Unfalsifiable utopianism, and frankly, naive about human nature. There's just so much hand waving when it comes to concrete proposals. Blueprints? like what? Stalin himself would have been a fan a Parecon. I'll miss David. Debt was a really interesting book. But, if this is anarchism, our most visible anarchist activists today didn't get the message. We all practice Communism at the level of a family. And we all practice anarchism in a somewhat free society. But not all social systems scale. I do wonder why my favorite anarchists like Graeber and Chomsky and Zinn found their homes in academic institutions where most of their peers are fully capable of governing themselves. Call me cynical, but scratch a cynic and you'll find a disillusioned idealist, they say. It seems to me that if you scratch a social anarchist and you'll find a crypto totalitarian.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#102

Post by anarch1c » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

I’m curious what makes you so sure the laws on the books are what’s keeping the majority of billions from randomly shooting each other.

Just because laws exist doesn’t mean they’re what’s keeping your neighbors from randomly gunning you down given they could snap biologically despite the law.

Anarchism doesn’t mean no laws or rules.

Anarchism as a lawless violent mess is the movie version.

One could even keep the Constitution system we have, again anarchism is rules, no rulers. Still need to figure out rules.

An anarchism “hack” at scale IMO starts with a functioning legislative and judicial process beholden to public life not corporatism, and local management of concern rather than having Mr President to eventually function overload, wiggling his pen changing the outputs without legislative action.

It means not believing in grandpas notion of a functional nation state. Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, the dead should not rule the living. (Indeed they cannot given many facts of science, it’s really lots of vain people emotionally play acting their nostalgia, the world has literally moved on).

Step 1 in the US, restrain the Presidency. It was only ever intended to be a task master for Congress. Step 2 Senate term limits to avoid capture by people who think America achieved the ultimate form of human society in 1980. Step 3 expand representation in Congress, a process which was halted decades ago by special interests. Step 4 expand judiciary to improve access to timely court processes. Yet another process neutered in the last century.

Above all take control of your political future rather than be distracted by what are ultimately disposable technology fads.

I know it’s fashionable to ignore it but you pointed out yourself how much worse it could be without anything, might be a good idea to make sure it’s screwed down.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#103

Post by ozborn » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

pmachinery wrote: post #83

lucideer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a demonstrably false fairy tale Demonstrably how? > Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. > It is painfully obvious that we would act much worse under anarchy. Above you said it was "demonstrable" but now se…

> Demonstrably how? The existence/necessity of laws to deter bad behaviour.

I think it is more complicated than that, although I agree in some circumstances laws deter bad behavior. However many laws are passed to protect the bad behavior of the powerful. Moreover, under better environments people may organize themselves effectively with only cultural norms - not laws. Think happy families living together without any laws governing their behavior or tribes with cultural norms protecting a common grazing area.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#104

Post by oblio » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #38

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

> this is a demonstrably false fairy tale Demonstrably how? > Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. > It is painfully obvious that we would act much worse under anarchy. Above you said it was "demonstrable" but now se…

> Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave.

And how do you remove those incentives?

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#105

Post by ReactiveJelly » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #37

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

I think it is written that way just to provoke you, and it seems to have worked.

I wish anarchist thinkers could explain their thoughts as well as they could provoke me.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#106

Post by oblio » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

anarch1c wrote: post #102

oxymoran wrote: post #11

“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…

I’m curious what makes you so sure the laws on the books are what’s keeping the majority of billions from randomly shooting each other. Just because laws exist doesn’t mean they’re what’s keeping your neighbors from randomly gunning you down given they could snap biologically despite the law. Anarchism doesn’t mean no laws or rules. Anarchism as a lawless violent mess is the movie version. One could even keep the Con…

What you're saying looks a lot like reform, not anarchy.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#107

Post by vidarh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

browserface wrote: post #88

vidarh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchism does not suggest no rules, but voluntary association. A flat share is a perfect example in that if ypu don't like the rules you find other people to share with - the rules are not imposed from above, but the result of negotiation and entered into voluntarily. I'm not an anarchist though I share some of the views, but so much of the criticism of anarchism comes from misrepresenting anarchism as rejecting all…

I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts. But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright. How is that different to the current global system? I mean it li…

All of this was there from the earliest conceptions of anarchism.

The difference is one of degree. Moving to another country requires means to do so, and immigration procedures imposed on you by others that means inherently you have rules imposed on you wherever you go.

It also involves the state you move from imposing rules on you that you have never been free to consent to, and a central aspect of anarchism is to e.g reject that the state has a justifiable claim to regulate property in the first place, and so that unlike a flat share where you share a space that is actively used by others, the state attempts to monopolise commons with threats of force.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#108

Post by browserface » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

hippich wrote: post #97

browserface wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts. But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright. How is that different to the current global system? I mean it li…

The biggest problem - people can't easily change countries nowadays (and even before borders, I bet traveling that far was cost prohibitive). So you end up in the situation where you have to follow rules of the contract, which you did not explicitly agreed to

If anarchists are anarchists, they shouldn't be cowed by "top down" rules, they should be able to find a way round them, to suit themselves, without destroying themselves. So that it's "not easy" to change countries shouldn't stop an "anarchist" because they're all about negotiation, personal responsibility and choice, and freedom right? Anarchists shouldn't be people crying in the streets how unfair it is that "big brother" is ruining their pathetic little lives. They should be the men and women of action, calculating and executing their next move for their maximum benefit, and possibly for humankind too.

And if it's voluntary, isn't everything voluntary? I voluntarily accept the social contract, or I end up in jail. I voluntarily accept the laws of physics, or I end up maimed or worse. Voluntary speaks to choice, which everyone has. But negotiated...I don't expect most sharehouses (or workplaces, or schools, or whatever) that you enter as a fresher will make their rules negotiable to you. But to another extent, in "advanced" society, the "law" is negotiable through he courts and lawyers, and blackmail, and in "less developed" society, negotiable through bribes and so on. I don't get where anarchism fits in.

It seems like, either it's something that doesn't make sense (no rules) but people believe it zealotly and use it as disguise for violence, or it's something that can work (rules and choice) but not something that works as some standalone organizing principle of a society that is somehow in opposition to the world today. I mean if anarchism is against society, isn't that oxymoron, because if you're anarchist, you can just exercise your choice and negotiate your way to a better situation for yourself? So you don't have to "change the world" just bend it to how you want it locally.

Am I being too sophist? I don't think so but I seem to be missing some point to anarchism. I might just not get what anarchism is, or maybe I don't want to get it. But it seems like it doesn't make sense to me.

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#109

Post by Sebb767 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. [...] But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

So you're telling me they don't behave well on their own?

Also:

> Do you believe [...] that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

Doesn't really go well with:

> Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest?

So, all are equally good, unless you're rich or a politician, in which case you're a pig. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

#110

Post by robofanatic » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

Humans having been living without so called governments or police for millions of years. The perfect anarchist world would have happened by now if it actually worked.