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

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

#401

Post by ggggtez » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

> Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically.

Aha! So, in order to organize in an anarchic society, maybe we should form some kind of democracy where people get to vote on things.

Of course, even if most people are good natured, managing and optimizing trillions of dollars of budget is difficult, so it would be good if we could elect representatives that could work in a small community of anarchists who can devote their attention to understanding these issues, and voting on them. We could perhaps call them "Congress".

WAIT A SECOND. I GET IT NOW. Anarachy IS big government!

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

#402

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #364

boomboomsubban wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So how would your anarchist utopia deal with an army of thousands raiding your village? > the rest of your post rather depends on that point of view. The need to feel safe from raiders is fairly universal.

"Thousands of raiders" don't magically appear, you prevent them by preventing the conditions necessary for thousands of people to unite with the goal of hurting others.

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

#403

Post by wongarsu » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #323

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…

> 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…

> The compromise is to let people decide for themselves.

That's not a compromise. That's like saying "Some people like blindly shooting into crowds. Some do it to gain an advantage, some do it because they don't fear death, some do it for fun. Most gun wounds aren't even lethal. Sure, some people are opposed and think nobody should blindly shoot into crowds. So let's just compromise and say that everyone does what they want".

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

#404

Post by andi999 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #332

csours wrote: post #133

I don't understand anarchy. Take littering for an example. Would an anarchist system (oxymoron alert) have fines for littering? How about signs and a slogan? TV advertisements? Another example: I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... but I sincerely believe that without volunteers watching, that number would go up s…

The system a convention uses of having volunteers watching for bad behavior is actually already similar to anarchist concepts of community self defense. Under an anarchist society, the folks tasked with handling these sorts of things would be volunteers elected by the community (in a con they're instead volunteers screened by the con committee). There would also be an expectation that, in public spaces, it's everyone…

I posted this already to a different question, but tell me: according to what you said, isnt the KKK a good example for this? It came from the community, was supported by the community, also they were very outspoken against (falsely accused) sexual harassment.

Playing the devils advocate here, but I really would like to know why this is not an example of anarchy; of course answers like people will behave differently if there is no capitalism I find hard to accept without evidence.

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

#405

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #396

boomboomsubban wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced, you're only living reasonably as you're being forced or you view yourself as "special."

False. I can live reasonably and believe most others would too, but also believe a sizeable enough populace would not - harming the whole populace.

So you are special and other people need to be ruled.

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

#406

Post by andi999 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #201

windsurfer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand on how one could face a trial for littering in a society that has no government?

There is no reason not to have government, as long as there is no state and no master/slave relation.

So there is a trial, but no punishment?

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

#407

Post by zanny » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

kempbellt wrote: post #335

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…

The issue with your premise is in defining "behaving in a reasonable fashion". This is incredibly subjective. It also speaks to the ignorance that privileged people have in regards to assuming everyone else must also have. In many cases, "Just close shop for two weeks (or maybe a year? Who knows...), and also you have to wear a mask all the time now" is not a reasonable ask. People have mouths to feed and bills to pa…

"Leaders" told everyone to stay home. People, largely, listened for a while. When the money ran out (or never existed to begin with) and no support came to sustain the situation but the messaging remained "stay at home" thats when people got mad and stopped listening.

Since the same leaders also said wear a mask, it went from "health experts trying to save lives" to "politicians trying to leave me destitute and homeless".

The US failed, as it always does, to provide for the needs of its citizens. So as the citizens usually do, they stopped listening. And in practice absolutely nobody gives a real shit - the people don't care and capital is eating future generations by the trillion. Everyones happy in the most perverted definition of happy.

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

#408

Post by wolco » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #397

surfpel wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m also not an anarchist, I don’t believe these are good examples. In fact, they could be an argument for anarchism. 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. People started rejecting masks and shutdowns en masse after astroturfing and media convinced them to. There are countries where order…

Just because you implement anarchism, you haven't automatically abolished capitalism. Bars would still be privately owned, and the owners would have incentive to keep them open in order to earn money to buy food (and protection etc). In theory you could institute socialism in an arachic society. But that seems ... ill advised for anything larger than a small community. I can at least imagine socialism working in an e…

Wait did you say money?

Money doesn't exist in the situation you describe. Who is issuing the money? At best trading for good is the best possible.

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

#409

Post by username90 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #387

username90 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters a lot if the authority is big enough that a random militia cannot topple them. A lone village can be raided with impunity, id the village is a part of a big country then soldiers will move in to protect them.

There is no reason to have such a small authorities. Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors. It comes with some small sacrifices, but it's still much better than otherwise. In practice, your village can come to an agreement with other small villages and do military exercises together while still maintaining autonomy, and you can then maintain complex weapon systems and large…

> Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors.

I don't believe that, any link? City states are not anarchic nor are tribes.

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

#410

Post by ggggtez » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #367

TulliusCicero wrote: post #354

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. This can sound reasonable when you think of it in terms of, " most people behaving in a reasonable fashion, most of the time". But anarchists don't want to eliminate hierarchical use of force for most cases, but for all of them. Any time I've heard…

I tend to agree. Psychopaths are an unsolvable problem. People like them is “why we can’t have nice things”. If it weren’t for psychopaths we would not need passwords or encrypted passwords or security protocols, etc, etc., because everyone would behave in good fashion. But we don’t so we can’t.

>we would not need passwords

Hahahaha. You don't really think that all "hackers" are literally psychopaths do you? That's rather an amazing way to view the world, to be honest. Does it make it easier to go to sleep at night to attribute insanity to everyone who does anything you disagree with?