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

Here is the thing... a reasonable choice for an individual is not the same as a reasonable choice for a group.

A classic example is something like fishing. As an individual, it is entirely reasonable for me to catch as many fish as possible. I won’t put a dent into the fish population, and the more fish I catch, the better it is for me.

However, if everyone fishes as much as they want, the fisheries will be depleted. It is reasonable for an individual to fish as much as they want, but not for a society.

So why doesn’t everyone just fish less, because that is the reasonable thing for the society to do? Well, in an anarchy, I can only choose for myself. If I fish less, but everyone else still fishes as much as they want, then I will have less fish AND the fishery will still be depleted. I am worse off for no gain; it is clearly reasonable for me to fish as much as I can, since the fishery is going to be depleted no matter what.

Even if by a miracle everyone else agreed to voluntarily fish less, it would STILL be in my interest to ‘defect’ and fish as much as I want. My individual choice isn’t going to cause an issue if everyone else is already fishing less, so now I get more fish AND the fishery is fine.

Bottom line, no matter what everyone else does, my rational choice is to fish as much as I want. If everyone is rational, the fishery will be depleted.

This is known as a collective action problem, and is a type of prisoner’s dilemma.

You can’t get out of it through individual rationality. You have to approach the problem collectively.

> With a lack of stimulus or even just in this economic system, bars and businesses in general are incentivized to stay open. They are being ‘coerced’ to stay open.

You could say this about any thief in any economic system, including the economy of survival (stealing food, shelter, etc). This is not a thing anarchy could solve.

> People started rejecting masks and shutdowns en masse after astroturfing and media convinced them to.

These aren't laws or government, and they would still exist in an anarchistic system.

> There are countries where orders were followed voluntarily and good results followed.

Yes, and there are no countries where no orders were required because people self-regulated.

I have observed anarchists generally don't like being told what to do. That is not a judgement. Just observed behavior leading to an obvious conclusion.

To be fair here, I don't like being told what to do.

When the machinery of society is running well, lives are reasonable, etc... these people continue to advocate and agitate, but the masses will generally go with what is easy, reasonable.

It's all pretty harmless.

Now consider the case when said machinery is not running well, is unjust, and generally not reasonable.

Suddenly, that advocacy and agitation takes greater root. Screw being told what to do, essentially.

Society sees greater unrest and in general the basic social contracts come into question.

From whatever establishment happens to be in majority control point of view, anarchists and others willing to subvert are bad, harmful elements that should be avoided and or dealt with more formally.

Seems to me that is not harmful at all, may even be beneficial, a self correcting mechanism of sorts.

Anarchists are simply a necessary artifact of human nature.

The T-cells of society.

The remedy is not to condemn anarchists, or consider their ideas irrelevant.

It is to run society better. Make the basic deal sexy, compelling enough that people will accept being told what to do in return for a modest, reasonable, dignified life.

Edit: From discussions with an anarchist friend:

When the common man, labor, the basic, necessary classes are abused, overexploited, they are offended. It may be they are members of said class too. So there is clear self interest.

Agency really matters. Potential does too. Overly totalitarian society tends to labor to excess and snuff out being human.

Social democracy is largely comparable with anarchism. Rule by democracy, not by purse, or bloodline, army, or god.

This exchange seems to support my observations above.

Nice weekend lark! This discussion here, along with a couple I will have with others will prove interesting and informative.

If nothing else, I suspect many of us, if we are truly seeking info like this, will understand one another better.

Never a bad thing.

It's certainly a spectrum from representative democracy to direct democracy to anarchy.

That said, locking people in cages, treating them with inhumanity and violence, then releasing them into a world where they now have a harder time functioning in society and finding legitimate work doesn’t sound like a genius plan to solve psychopaths.