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

341–350 of 839 posts

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

#341

Post by luckylion »

qntty wrote: post #256
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".

I believe the parent comment's point wasn't about conservatives specifically, but rather that you can just change a word or two and insert any ideology you'd like by saying that since $ideology has [insert some words here] and therefore would also form a queue at the bus station.

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

#342

Post by komali2 »

username90 wrote: post #311
boomboomsubban wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principle of voluntary association addresses these issues. If your needs and wants were actually considered, you would be more willing to pay taxes.

That is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is a reason unions has to force its members to pay dues and not just live on donations.

"wishful thinking" alone isn't a good enough argument to consider the case settled. The American democratic system is "just wishful thinking," in reality powerful oligarchs control many of the day to day levers through lobbying and outright bribery, while other oligarchs slowly transform entire swaths of the population into willing sheep (rupert murdoch). But america still works, kinda, so it's not enough to say "it's just wishful thinking."

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

#343

Post by boomboomsubban »

username90 wrote: post #329
boomboomsubban wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not really. It is very relevant. You only need someone to behave unreasonable even once to destroy multiple peoples lives These things are true whether or not you believe humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced. Forcing people isn't stopping these psychopaths from destroying lives, and there's at least reason to believe it helps push them to action.

In an organized society a psychopath can kill a few in a murder spree. In an unorganized society the psychopath can gather and organize a lot of thugs to loot and burn millions of homes. Has happened many times in history. I know which one I prefer. The gun argument actually works here, if you ban good guys from organizing then all organizations will be bad ones. And an organized group of people always wins against u…

Calling the societies being discussed "unorganized" isn't a fair view of the topic, and the rest of your post rather depends on that point of view.

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

#344

Post by username90 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #328
username90 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is a reason unions has to force its members to pay dues and not just live on donations.

That is an example of voluntary association. They chose to gain the benefits of the union, they need to pay the dues.

My point is that voluntary donations isn't enough to run much at all, even for organizations that the worker is in control of.

And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.

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

#345

Post by waihtis »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #271
waihtis wrote: post #223

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?

How did you infer that from my comment?

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

#346

Post by brobdingnagians »

HoveringOrb wrote: post #340
brobdingnagians wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not that "most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine", it's that many people are. But you are saying this because you _agree_ with the politicians. You believe your preferred course of action is better than most peoples'. There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best. There is disagreement on what course of action will get society through it and optimize future outcomes. It is…

>There are different viewpoints and pilosophies on what would work out best. In this case, it mostly seems to be a difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say. One of these is decidedly more valid than the other. I'm sure the experts disagree on some points, but these are details compared to the difference between the overall message they offer and what some self-centered goob or conspir…

Even experts disagree. Countries have taken different actions precisely because of that. And even then, it can quickly devolve to "rule by experts" in every area of our life. I can listen to experts, I can learn from them, and I can make my own judgement call.

> difference between what Joe Blow says and what actual epidemiologists say

That's my point. It is a radical step to let Joe Blow, however silly or stupid I may think he is, to decide his own way of living. Maybe Joe Blow thinks I'm an idiot too for living the way I choose to do it.

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

#347

Post by GrantSolar »

dTal wrote: post #284
baddox wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are the human beings in government able to behave in a reasonable fashion without being forced to?

Parent addresses this explicitly: >not because politicians are any better than the average person, but because they tend to have at least a bare minimum of education, access to advisors, some positive incentives -the next election- and no high stakes on the decision like, say, a bar owner

If a population does not tend to follow expert advice and a politician is incentivized by an upcoming election, it seems more of a negative incentive for them to act according to rationality

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

#348

Post by cortesoft »

GrantSolar wrote: post #293
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 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 cause lots of outbreaks. >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…

How would your job and healthcare be protected under anarchism?

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

#349

Post by elindbe2 »

onion2k wrote: post #87
sokoloff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> addressed through mechanisms like the provision of healthcare, UBI, equality, or addressing inequality then perhaps society can be structured to have a very minimal government The (most likely/obvious implementation of the) first half of that seems diametrically opposite of “very minimal government”.

Having a government that's there to do no more than take in tax receipts and spend the money on essentials would be minimal compared to what we have at the moment. Right now the government involves itself in practically every aspect of people's lives. It doesn't have to be that way.

But your minimal government wouldn't work. If you have taxes then you need a justice system to enforce collection of taxes. You'll also need a military to prevent outsiders from taking your treasury.

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

#350

Post by auggierose »

aarpmcgee wrote: post #339
luckylion wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the anarchist alternative be, provided everybody still needs to eat. Let's keep money as a simple placeholder for value. If the reasonable people wouldn't open the clubs, how would they make money? Okay, their landlords are reasonable as well, and don't charge rent. And their grocery store gives them food for free? How would they determine who is so reasonable they get the reason-treatment of free food eve…

To me it seems that you seem to be imagining anarchy only within the context of the current state of reality with the sole difference of anarchy being set to ‘true’. I think a world in which anarchy were dominant would be structured quite differently and involve humans with fundamentally nonviolent dispositions. My belief is that this is possible.

Anarchy means that the law of the strongest rules. Not sure why you think that this is somehow aligned with non-violence.
Post reply on HN