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

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

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 839 posts

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

#111

Post by learnstats2 »

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…

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

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

#112

Post by scythe »

I wonder why anarchists rarely critique the dynamics of FOSS, particularly those projects with no commercial backing. You have a bunch of people in a naturally leaderless setting who, at least apparently, want to cooperate and build something in an environment where violence is largely irrelevant, and yet:

>Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

Well, yes, but what a pain! Everyone goes off in all different directions and boring stuff often doesn't get done. Sometimes I find myself wishing we had a dictator.

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

#113

Post by _jal »

zozbot234 wrote: post #99
brbrodude wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I see one of the most striking arguments for anarchist philosophy. That is: It takes, and it took, an immensurable ammount of violence to make the status quo, 'lawful order' is a very shaky concept there. From this perspective it's way clearer that the unbalances and the unlawlessness of a big chunk of the "order" are themselves the sources of so much messed up stuff we have to deal with and try hopeles…

> humans already come from nature with capacity for ... conflict resolution ... Um, I don't think so. Conflict resolution is the main obstacle to the viability of entirely voluntary ("anarchist") organization. That's why it's the self-defining function of any government, even the most minimal.

How often do you find yourself needing third-parties to arbitrate your interactions?

Because for me, outside some formal processes I do for my job, it has been well over a decade since I needed someone to mediate my interactions with someone else.

People are very good at conflict resolution. They only see the cases where it doesn't work out.

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

#114

Post by oblio »

learnstats2 wrote: post #111
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…

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

They don't have to behave better in the presence of authority, they are forced to, that's kind of the point of authority :-)

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

#115

Post by ryanbrunner »

ozborn wrote: post #103
pmachinery wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

As mentioned upthread though, there's a lot of reason to believe these self-regulating small societies work specifically when they're small - once you get to the point where you don't have a personal connection with everyone in your tribe, the social cost of acting out of the established norm decreases - instead of your close friends shunning you, maybe a few strangers think you're an asshole.

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

#116

Post by seneca »

INTPenis wrote: post #21

A swedish rapper said in 1998; "Den enda sanna demokraten är anarkist", translates to "the only true democrat is anarchist". Not meaning the Democratic party in the US but rather a literal interpretation of the two words. Democrat meaning rule of the people and anarchist meaning no leaders. I was raised to believe in anarchism, and I still do at heart. But if it were ever to work we'd need strict and global regulatio…

> Because evolution itself is randomness unchecked.

Randomness unchecked is chaos. Evolution actually specifically requires a check, in the form of the organism's environment, which is what prunes the ineffective branches.

This is also so for human organizations. Without agreed upon rules to check undesirable traits we end up with Chaos.

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

#117

Post by learnstats2 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #109

> 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 inf…

"Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it" (and similar) is a very common aphorism.

It's not an unreasonable position to take that we should dismantle these power structures (having extreme wealth or extreme political power), and it's not unreasonable to be cautious of those who seek to maintain those.

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

#118

Post by lucasnortj »

Reading this article it’s almost as if Graeber never looked at the world around him and saw how people behave when they see that law and order has broken down e.g. the London riots of 2010 where everyone ran to loot the nearest Foot Locker as soon as they realised no one would stop them.

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

#119

Post by anarch1c »

oblio wrote: post #106
anarch1c wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem functionally fixed cognitively.

Sorry, anarchy is fire and brimstone! Mad Max living! Let’s go there!

Does that feel better?

Anarchism isn’t a thing. It can’t have one shape, and color.

Like most things there’s nuance and philosophy to it that the popular memes, and a whole lot of popular writing, do not impart. Vague emotional colorings without functional concept.

Anarchism is fine with collective social norms so long as it’s not at gun point, serving 1% bottom lines.

There’s little to be said about logistical life, we know how to supply people. It’s emotional categorizing of who is lord and who is a serf that we’ve yet to shed.

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

#120

Post by __s »

oblio wrote: post #114
learnstats2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

They don't have to behave better in the presence of authority, they are forced to, that's kind of the point of authority :-)

Unfortunately authority doesn't behave better in the presence of itself
Post reply on HN