291–300 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you only make reasonable choices because you are forced to?
Some times, yes. And some times multiplied by however many people there are results in a lot of some times that people wouldn't be forced to in an anarchy.
Zapatistas, Apoists, Chris Boehm's work which suggests many if not all (current) pre-industrial societies (implying all societies from 250 000 - 15 000 years ago) maintain anarchist-like societies. As such, civilisation (and farming) and therefore hierachical societies account for 0.06% of human societal structures, measured by time. Edit: just for kicks: “The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily ex…
You can have functioning anarchist societies with traditional values or with same minded -istas and -ists. Not with people with different goals and values. I don't think anarchism works in a modern heterogenic society.
Only with a organized government you can have Mormonistas, and Trumpistas living in the same neighbourhood with a Lesbian couple. Anarchism can't protect minorities against the will of the people. Government can.
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…
>The government recommended remote work whenever possible but many companies just ignored it in spite of having many workers that could perfectly work remotely, and just implement it when forced by law.
I believe an anarchist response to this would be these examples are not so much cases of people (generally speaking) going against expert advice out of choice, more that it is a few individuals in positions of power (pub landlords, business owners) exerting their will (for personal gain) on many other people who are not in a position to push back. Employees who heed expert advice risk their job security and healthcare in doing so. By removing hierarchies and power we may well see better outcomes than we do at present. That is, the behavior you are seeing is the effect of a political system and it is not necessarily true that these same behaviors will exist by changing to a different political system. If Anarchism in practice would not entirely end the behavior, it removes the innate incentivization of the behavior
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 gi…
I don't think this is true. Look at the Mongols. A few nomadic tribes got together and conquered most of Asia. They created a highly centralized power center by force but they didn't start out with one.
Fifteen percent of the populace will never steal. Fifteen percent will steal most anything not nailed down. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the remaining seventy percent.
Never mind whether its 15%, there is a minority of people who will steal, or perform other antisocial acts, if they think they can get away with it. If the majority of people see this happen without consequences then they will behave in the same way, partly because under those circumstances theft is a reasonable choice, and partly because of herd instinct.
So yes, I believe that human society does need a system of laws backed by enforcement. I don't need to believe that its everyone else who needs to be controlled and I alone am moral, I just need to believe that there are some people who need to be controlled.
I don't often read anything from anarchists. Whenever I do, it always comes off as sophomoric. Pretentious sophistry. When you boil down his questions, they're not serious questions about anarchy, they're lame excuses for him to keep talking. - Do you wait for your turn on a crowded bus? - Are you a member of a sports team or small group without a leader? - Do you think politicians suck, and people are selfish? - Do…
I have issues with this article and with anarchism, and I agree that some of this is sophomoric (not sure about sophistry though). However, this article isn't really for you (or me). There are surprisingly many people who think that "anarchists" simply want to see the world burn and are promoting a society where their children are as likely to be murdered while out playing as not. This article is just saying that tha…
Indeed. Anarchists clearly do not want to see the world burn, they just redefine "world" to be the few blocks that surround their home. And children are clearly safe when one subscribes to the correct private security service. If children are murdered, that’s obviously a violation of the contract with the security service that must be settled through arbitration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I thought this was funny too. I literally read the same sentence and thought to myself: "ok, I am definitely not an anarchist.
So you only make reasonable choices because you are forced to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you only make reasonable choices because you are forced to?
Would you pay the same amount of tax as you do today if you weren't forced? Do you believe others would? Do you think that having taxes to pay for school and roads is unreasonable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many hardened sociopaths can an anarchy sustain before it either collapses or becomes a mockery of its own self-direction and mutualism principles?
How many hardened sociopaths can any system take before the same? Look at America right now, with a narcissistic psychopath installed at the highest level of a supposed democracy.
The amount he hasn't been able to do in that position is testament to that. Imagine if the US had been an anarchy instead and he'd amassed enough same-thinking folk to take it over?