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

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

#251

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

sudosysgen wrote: post #210

dragonwriter wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agricultur Even if they were both this and peaceful then, this would only imply that we merely need to dismantle agriculture and the civilization dependent on it to return to that state, which I submit is an unacceptable trade-off to most people. And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting…

That doesn't follow from the principle. We don't need to dismantle agriculture or anything else, you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. What it means is that hierarchies are not necessary for human organization.

> you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist.

Where?

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

#252

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

Nursie wrote: post #245

sudosysgen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Sure, the Zapatistas, the Apoists, and a few indigenous anarchist groups.

Forming gangs and militias is difficult when the status quo is good for most people resulting the majority being willing to use violence to avoid being ruled by gangs and warlords.

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

#253

Post by kiliantics » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:27 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…

I think this argument loses a lot of nuance. The idea behind anarchism, I think, is that people will generally be good to each other and support each other when left to their own devices. In fact, if you think about it, the capacity for doing harm is only very large when you have highly centralised power structures. The fact that people aren't perfect and can do harm at all means, to anarchists, that we should not give the power to cause widespread harm to any individual or small group.

As for the COVID example, we are being told that the disease is spreading because of irresponsible people congregating in bars and salons etc. But if you look at the numbers, the main places that the disease is spreading is in workplaces like meat factories. People are not going to work in these places and spread the disease because of some "selfish, egotistical" inclinations. They are doing so because the society we live in has selfish people with a lot of power that are willing to get others infected for the sake of profit -- i.e. the business owners who are forcing people to work in unsafe conditions if they want to keep their jobs. I think this is further evidence that anarchism is a better approach.

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

#254

Post by BobbyJo » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #228

marcusverus wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, it' and indictment of the current law system, it has utterally failed to protect the environment and other living things. The fact that our laws have tried to protect the environment and 'utterly failed' is clear evidence that behaviour of individuals and corporations are not, by default, making good environmental decisions. The idea that these actors, who are bad stewards of the environment when l…

Counterpoint: The legal concept of fiduciary responsibility, and actual de facto laws, legally compel the board of directors and executives of for-profit corporations to produce profit for their shareholders. There are even special laws for officers of publicly traded companies that make this compulsion even more strict add additional criminal charges for failure. Now, obviously these laws aren't something most corpo…

>absolutely do create powerful incentives and drive the culture of large corporations away from any consideration for ethics.

They absolutely do not. Corporate officers, especially at large corporations, are driven by personal profit, career success, etc. Fiduciary responsibility represents exactly what its name implies: the requirement that you act responsibly on behalf of investors/shareholders. If it was a powerful driver of corporate behavior, then we would expect different behaviors from privately run corporations (I believe that's actually most of them). I do not see that being the case.

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

#255

Post by vorpalhex » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

spurgu wrote: post #248

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.

Thomas Paine touches on this in his works. Every group past about 10 has a government even if it's just a patriarch figure. As the group grows, the government gets more complex and usually it's harder to represent everyone.

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

#256

Post by qntty » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

dingdingdang wrote: post #207

This is such demagogue reasoning that it is hard to know where to begin. A good indication of something being off is when it is trivial to rewrite the points to support the exact opposite point. I.e. "Are You A Conservative? The Answer May Surprise You!" "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?" "If you answered “ye…

You assumption that being (the traditional kind of) conservative is the opposite of being an anarchist would be strange to many anarchists. Noam Chomsky has said that he considers himself a conservative in the traditional sense. Also see the essay by the '60s anarchist Paul Goodman called "Notes of a Neolithic Conservative".

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

#257

Post by bhupy » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #216

bhupy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Except infrastructure in most of the US is communally owned, and we had to institute authority and fines for littering.

While it's true that there exists some societies that have been able to overcome the tragedy of the commons (it's usually extremely small homogeneous societies), I don't think we have any evidence to suggest that it can provably be replicated to the rest of the world.

It's like suggesting that there exists some companies that are able to sustain themselves by being 100% WFH/remote, and therefore all companies should be able to sustainably do that.

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

#258

Post by BobbyJo » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

spurgu wrote: post #248

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.

I think it's inability to work on large numbers of people is due to an even simpler explanation: the law of large numbers. One giant asshole can do a lot of damage, and with 1000 or more people, you can guarantee there are going to be at least a few.

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

#259

Post by andi999 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #239

andi999 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, but then isnt the KKK a good example of Anarchy? The community agreed that part of the residents should not live there anymore, they made there own laws and tried to enforce them.

No, because the KKK itself represents a coercive power structure acting without the consent of those it attempt to enforce power over, which is inherently not anarchist. If the KKK only tried to harass or harm people who had consented to be subject to them, then you'd have an argument.

This doesnt tally with the previous comment. Then you are saying anarchy has laws, but they cannot be enforced. So your interpretation is no laws (which can be enforced): then how would you prevent the KKK in forming (violating your rule) without a government to enforce "no minority killings, please"

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

#260

Post by vorpalhex » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #205

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…

If someone is allowed to amass power to to abuse others, it is not anarchy. You seem to assume anarchy implies no rules, but fundamentally to ensure minimal rules the bare minimum is to shut down any attempt at aggression against others. An anarchist would argue, however, that protecting society against aggression does not require a top down state.

There was a recent attempt in Capital Hill at creating an area where everyone was equal, and as I recall a bunch of people seized power and went on to cause havoc and violence...

How do you prevent someone from building too much power? Well, you need to cap their reserves of soldiers/hardware/supplies. In order to do that you inherently need a stronger entity to enforce those caps...