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

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

#241

Post by cma » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #215

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.

In the south, at some chains, even grocery store employees weren't allowed to wear them until the day after Trump said a mask or even a scarf would be ok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i96408t-Xb4

I think that was March 31st or so. Up until then, the owners were worried it would drive customers away to let employees wear them.

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

#242

Post by julesnp » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #179

murgindrag wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In…

> Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. They will always do this? What is the source of this knowledge? And I ask that in the literal sense, not rhetorically.

I would say it's the fact that despite humanity's initial state being anarchy, all over the world human society has developed along basically these same patterns.

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

#243

Post by tuesdayrain » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #221

tuesdayrain wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently I behave because it's in my interest to abide by laws, even those I don't agree with. If all authority disappeared overnight, I believe my best course of action would be to immediately assemble an armed militia so we could enforce a set of rules within a community that we believe are the best. I would still respect many social norms, but definitely not all of them. One thing that comes to mind is that "inno…

Right, so you agree that it's better for you to have very limited power and exist without authority, in which case you'd have to confirm to most social norms or suffer consequences, than for authority to exist and for people like you to accede to it? Because in our system, if you were to accumulate enough authority it wouldn't be in your interest anymore to follow laws.

It's only better for me in an idealistic scenario where my local militia succeeds. If a bigger and stronger one comes around then my life could quickly become horrible.

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

#244

Post by _jal » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #121

_jal wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are very good at conflict resolution because third-party arbitration is available as a last resort. They aren't nearly as good at it in e.g. the average Third-World country, where fair and impartial courts are not generally available.

Do you think Somalia is like some never-ending Stallone movie?

Business still gets done. People work, get paid, buy things without knifing each other. It is true that without recourse to state institutions, there is more non-state-sanctioned violence, which is kind of definitional, but also true in absolute terms.

But enormous amounts of daily interaction goes on with humans demonstrating perfectly normal abilities to compromise without killing each other.

This is another form of 'elite panic' - the belief that The Lord of the Flies is just around the corner if Officer Smiley stands down. People don't behave that way in reality.

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

#245

Post by Nursie » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #162

shadowgovt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even think many would, the problem is that it only takes a few. The damage that a dedicated antisocial hyperminority can do to a society that lacks rules and enforcement of said is significant... Even more so in an age where technology acts as a force multiplier.

The idea of how an anarchic society would be run is that you would need strong social norms, and people willing to use violence in order to prevent authority from rising, which effectively deals with small antisocial minorities.

And where in the world has it played out like this?

Instead of examples of peaceful anarchism, the history of the world is full of examples showing that those with the will to use violence use it for their own ends, form gangs, and militias, become warlords...

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

#246

Post by DaniloDias » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #137

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…

> "> Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order" On the contrary, it' and indictment of the current law system, it has utterally failed to protect the environment and other living things, where-as anacistic organisations, charities and protest movement have done a lot for the environment. In fact they are the only ones that have done anything at all. If a given CEO da…

On the contrary again, look at the death of Lorenzo Anderson at the hands of the Seattle anarchist community.

I’m afraid at the end of everything that happens this year, the data is going to tell us that the only change the anarchists achieved was getting trump re-elected.

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

#247

Post by sudosysgen » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

altvali wrote: post #232

sudosysgen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anarchist argument is distribution of power. Take the example of pollution. Say you're an employee of a fossil fuel cooperative. Is it in your interest to continue polluting? Yes, because you after all own some of the ressources of that company and control it. So what is the anarchist solution? Well, it's in the interests of everyone to stop pollution, right? So you'd need people to come together, decide that pop…

> you might say that this is unrealistic, but for the government to do anything about pollution we needed hundreds of millions of people to protest Hundreds of millions? The organizers of the biggest climate strikes (September 2019) estimated 7.6 million globally, and that's being generous. It's vastly cheaper, easier and more popular to enforce companies to reduce their pollution from their own funds than to pay to…

For that to happen though, you need a large portion of people to agree to do so. In an anarchic society where production is essentially communally owned, the cost to stop polluting is the same in the end.

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

#248

Post by spurgu » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:25 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 believe that the core issue is the size of the group. That small groups up to 100-150 people (where everybody knows each other personally) would be able to self-organize in an anarchist fashion. Going above that the us/them issues will increase, leading to a need for some type of government.

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

#249

Post by username90 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #154

elgfare wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do that though? There would of course be no enforcable private property, but ownership would not disappear as a (albeit nebulous) concept.

Anarchism would mandate worker ownership of production, in the principle that ownership only ever derives from use. So factories and the like would be cooperatively owned, which makes it very very difficult for one individual to amass seriously outsized amounts of material resources. Combined with monetary policy that increases the velocity of money, the issue is fixed. As for personal property, under the principle t…

How would anarchism prevent tribes, warlords, organizations, armies and countries to form? If you leave people to do whatever they want that is what they do, as can be seen all throughout humanities history.

A system which doesn't prevent people from doing that isn't a system, instead you'll get the first despot who is charismatic enough to unite the people.

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

#250

Post by MacsHeadroom » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

Lowgain wrote: post #178

almost_usual wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this when dispersed camping, simple things like cleaning up at the campsite before leaving. Most people don’t have a problem with it but there are small groups who don’t care about anything. Those small groups tend to ruin it for everyone. You don’t see that at managed campgrounds because you will be fined.

>I see this when dispersed camping, simple things like cleaning up at the campsite before leaving. Most people don’t have a problem with it but there are small groups who don’t care about anything. Those small groups tend to ruin it for everyone. As I understand it, an anarchist camping group (for lack of a better name) could still collectively agree on and enforce rules - in many ways still a "managed" campground, j…

Yes, in fact a managed private campground with fines is compatible with anarchy provided the owner doesn't have an effective monopoly on places to pitch a tent outside of their campground.

Even if they do have a monopoly, a large group with an effective monopoly on paying campers over some timeframe can negotiate an agreement for reduced or no fines.

Anarchy is about power relations. If they're relatively equal, it's anarchy.