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

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

#211

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

torb-xyz wrote: post #33

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…

Anarchists obviously don’t think this will come about by itself, they simply believe that it is possible to organize society in such a way that the statement above holds true. Anarchists will generally argue that todays society prevents that from being the case (at least to a large enough degree). The details of all this (strategies, how to make it work, etc) is at the core of a lot of anarchist theory.

That's what I find so weird about most criticisms of Anarchism. Anarchists like nothing more than building systems and methods, then seeing how they work or could be improved. The only way to differentiate different forms of anarchism is through the systems they think would be most effective, and the methods they think would be most effective to bring them about.

It's just a lot harder to build peer-to-peer systems than centralized ones, although peer-to-peer systems are ultimately the most resilient.

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

#212

Post by TehShrike » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

I don't think these presuppositions make for a consistent anarchist. I think Rothbard's presuppositions in Ethics of Liberty hold up better: every person has full rights to their own body, the right to property, and the right to whatever they make with their body and their property.

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

#213

Post by thomastjeffery » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #186

Is there a name for this type of thing where you label yourself as something that everybody already understands, but then try to bait and switch the definition on them? Anarchists: we don’t believe in anarchy! We believe in the human spirit and peace and harmony! Satanist: we don’t believe in evil, we believe in love and treating each other with respect and kindness! I see this pop up all the time in politics and it’…

Well, satanism has always been about the irony, so I wouldn't call it a bait and switch. It's meant to be an obvious satire, showing off the obvious flaws present in judeo-christianity.

People often take satanism literally so they don't have to confront their own problematic belief system.

I imagine many anarchist movements follow a similar pattern.

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

#214

Post by photonemitter » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:07 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…

Tragedy of the commons, and the laziness of a false sense of security railings.

Basically; I agree with you, and I think it is because of the way people act in a society that seems structured.

People seem to think that if there is a crowd of people, then they are part of the crowd. If a crowd sees someone in trouble, then the people are generally found to be more reluctant to step up and offer help, compared to when they are alone (plenty of research seems to show this.)

I suspect this is a sort of commons tragedy, where we assume that a crowd must hold structure with “people who take care of that sort of thing”, or that someone who feels qualified will somehow step up.

From my own experience it also seems like people tend to relegate any issues to whosoever looks like they have any kind of uniform. (Even employees at shops, etc.)

Were it not the case, we can speculate that people who are forced to bear their own actions would be more inclined to act out their own moral and ethical leanings... rather than the implied relation that illegal = bad, and legal/not-illegal= good (or acceptable).

In a sense then, anarchy is when all that is legal encompasses everything that falls under a sort of Kantian categorical principle. While everything illegal is the universally opposite. (Basically where the extrinsic laws of society match the intrinsic moral values of all citizens.)

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

#215

Post by seibelj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #209

I have never believed in anarchism, as I don't believe that "human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to". But with COVID-19, I am seeing more proof than ever. In my country (but I guess it's the same in most, except perhaps some Nordic countries) bars, pubs and discos only reduce seating or close indoor spaces when forced to by law, in spite of the evidence that they c…

In Boston the majority of everyone I saw wore a mask before it was mandatory. The shame was (and still is) very strong for those who don’t wear one. I see junkies (drug addicts) who don’t give a fuck but I assume that’s because they have given up on life. All normal people are wearing masks that I can see.

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

#216

Post by sudosysgen » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #196

otherme123 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking littering: how littered is your home? Your work place? What about a Comercial Center? In an anarchy society, the littering is limited to your own property. Yes, you can live like a pig, as long as you don't litter properties of others. If you throw trash in other people property, you don't face a fine, but you will be expelled from the property and face a trial. In our current society, littering is a problem i…

The problem I’m having with this is that, while yes you don’t have to worry about the tragedy of the commons in your own home or church or place of work...it isn’t feasible to live your entire life outside the commons. How/where would one receive goods & services? How would one travel from A to B, and over whose infrastructure?

Infrastructure would indeed be communally owned, and the tragedy of the commons need not apply on communally owned property. An economist actually won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating actually how that happens :

"Political scientist Elinor Ostrom, who was awarded 2009's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her work on the issue, and others revisited Hardin's work in 1999.[45] They found the tragedy of the commons not as prevalent or as difficult to solve as Hardin maintained, since locals have often come up with solutions to the commons problem themselves.[46] For example, it was found that a commons in the Swiss Alps has been run by a collective of farmers there to their mutual and individual benefit since 1517, in spite of the farmers also having access to their own farmland. In general, it is in the interest of the users of a commons to keep them functioning and so complex social schemes are often invented by the users for maintaining them at optimum efficiency.[47][48]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

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

#217

Post by andi999 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

It depends on the social surroundings. "If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?" Yes, of course, but mainly because it also works. When I went to a certain east asian country 10 years ago, I had to stop queuing like this otherwise everybody cut in in front of me.

I know a person who couldnt stop the normal queing and failed at getting a meal at mcD (never made it to the counter).

So there are cultural tipping points.

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

#218

Post by vidarh » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:10 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…

Consider that people are in charge no matter what. In the current system, you simply decide to trust others using coercion over the ability of negotiating voluntary agreements for acceptable behaviour.

If people can't be trusted, the current system is also flawed, and has far more severe failure points: get a bad leader, and bad behaviours gets enforced with the power of a nation state.

Anarchy is not absence of law, but presence of consent and negotiation at every level.

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

#219

Post by sudosysgen » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

danielhua wrote: post #168

csours wrote: post #133

I don't understand anarchy. Take littering for an example. Would an anarchist system (oxymoron alert) have fines for littering? How about signs and a slogan? TV advertisements? Another example: I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... but I sincerely believe that without volunteers watching, that number would go up s…

I sincerely thought the author was joking at first. My lived experience is similar - some folks just genuinely act crappy just because they can, not because of "is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible." Ironically, the more well-off are more likely to engage in explicitly anti-social behavior[1]...I'd hate to live in a world of anarch…

Gordon Gekkos under Anarchy wouldn't be rich (because significant material accumulation is impossible without private property), so that wouldn't be a problem.

As for a tiny minority of assholes, they have been dealt with for millions of years using social norms and communal existence.

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

#220

Post by elgfare » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #172

elgfare wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production Legitimately curious: How do you mandate anything in an anarchy?

Using strong social norms and consensus. If the social norm is that hierarchy is not acceptable unless absolutely unavoidable, then a direct consequence is that the workplace must be organized cooperatively to follow that base.

I see. That's a big IF though if you ask me.