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

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

#421

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

the42thdoctor wrote: post #411

cortesoft wrote: post #389

Here is my argument against anarchism as some alternative to what we have. We ARE living in the end state of anarchism. We know how people will organize when there is no existing coercive power structure; they will form themselves into groups with rules and laws and enforcement. How do we know this? Because it is what people have done, over and over and over, when in that situation. If all of the government were to s…

As long a group does not try to conquer another and everyone is free to change groups, there's no problems with it.

You are ‘free’ to change groups, but most groups have a process for joining, and not everyone who wants to join is able. And you will have to move to that group’s territory.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by ‘no problems with it’.... this is an anarchy, there is no one to bring those problems to. Some people trying to conquer others is just a part of being in an anarchy. Some people want to conquer.

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

#422

Post by username90 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #402

username90 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you prevent that without a power structure?

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

#423

Post by 9000 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:13 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…

Well, despite what anarcho-capitalists may say, in an anarchist society you would find it very hard to maintain capitalism as is familair to us today. This is because the State, and by extension its threat of violence, enforces private property rights. In a truly anarchist system where no other protection force evolves to reinstitute the government's role in protecting private property, you would have a very hard time building large amounts of capital. You may be able to control some small amounts of relatively private property (in addition to some personal property), but you absolutely could not maintain the current breadth of our global supply chain without the credible threat of violence from a large organization bent on maintaining private property rights.[0]

---

[0]: Merely the threat of violence from a large organization, but not one with a goal of maintaining private property rights, is insufficient to maintain capitalist supply chains, because such an organization would naturally try to increase its own power through force. It would look more like a warlord, cartel, or small-time dictatorship with all of the corruption that implies than a smoothly working system of trade.

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

#424

Post by marricks » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

runjake wrote: post #412

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “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.” Having dealt with the dark side of humanity, there are lots of people who will not behave reasonably if left unchecked, due to one reason or another. And there are a lot of these people. Some of them lifelon…

I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is OK or how it should be.

Absolutely no form of government or system (anarchist 1000% included) will solve the problem of people being selfish or bad, all that anarchists contend (that I have seen) is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms.

And considering how Epstein was able to morph the whole political landscape to defend himself for over a decade, uh, any alternative can seem pretty reasonable.

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

#425

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #414

cortesoft wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

There’s precedent for human beings cooperating on matters like this to, say, prevent overfishing. What makes you think such coordination would be impossible in the absence of a hierarchy that boils down to “obey these rules or we’ll put a gun in your face”? Most humans are reasonable and cooperative.

No, I am not saying the threat of violence is the only way to coerce people. I am saying there will need to be coercion of some kind, and relying on individuals making the best choices for themselves does not solve all the problems.

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

#426

Post by luckylion » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #365

luckylion wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can self-organise to set rules, and show away people who refuse to comply. Aka "we don't need law enforcement, we can become law enforcement ourselves". And then you have law enforcement. Sounds like a reset more than an alternative.

Not quite so simple: this is what "community policing" is all about. Many portland protesters were there because they wanted the national guard out. National guard soldiers who didn't live there, weren't members of the community... Who could act shitty to community members with no consequence.

Sure, but that's a reset. "I don't like the persons who do the law enforcement, I want to become the law enforcement". And then, of course, not be replaced by somebody who doesn't like that style of law enforcement.

That would most likely quickly lead to massive segregation by any major criteria available, as "community policing" essentially means "no written laws, no recourse, we'll apply them as we see fit", ergo if you're not tightly aligned with the majority in your specific area, you're going to have a terrible time - so you leave for a place where they are more like you. Presumably while leaving your stuff behind to provide valuable "community resources".

I'm not saying that that couldn't be a good thing (homogeneity = less conflict), but I always get the feeling that there's a lot of magic involved ("we will find ways to come to consensus", "once we are free, all disagreement vanishes", which often sounds like wink wink and a few mass graves somewhere) and a lot of what is hand-waved away will present extremely large problems that will quickly make most people long for the stable, predictable and relatively tolerant society we have today.

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

#427

Post by JacksonGariety » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #420

runjake wrote: post #412

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “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.” Having dealt with the dark side of humanity, there are lots of people who will not behave reasonably if left unchecked, due to one reason or another. And there are a lot of these people. Some of them lifelon…

I think the main criticism is that centralizing the “legitimate” use of force to, as you say, “keep everyone in line”, is that you get all of the downsides of a violence-based society, and none of the upsides of freedom: such societies still enslave, torture, steal, violate privacy, and mass murder. Indeed, we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US as a result of such centralization of aut…

> we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US

Indeed. And it must be regarded as infinitely baffling that everyone is shouting "abolish the police" instead of "redistribute the wealth" ...

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

#428

Post by username90 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #420

runjake wrote: post #412

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “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.” Having dealt with the dark side of humanity, there are lots of people who will not behave reasonably if left unchecked, due to one reason or another. And there are a lot of these people. Some of them lifelon…

I think the main criticism is that centralizing the “legitimate” use of force to, as you say, “keep everyone in line”, is that you get all of the downsides of a violence-based society, and none of the upsides of freedom: such societies still enslave, torture, steal, violate privacy, and mass murder. Indeed, we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US as a result of such centralization of aut…

USA is one of the worst example though, there are plenty of societies which have well behaved police forces and still aren't anarchist.

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

#429

Post by soperj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

runjake wrote: post #412

They lost me in the first paragraph with: “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.” Having dealt with the dark side of humanity, there are lots of people who will not behave reasonably if left unchecked, due to one reason or another. And there are a lot of these people. Some of them lifelon…

>You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people

You really don't. Violence is completely unnecessary.

Like honestly, will you learn math better if someone is whipping you when you get the wrong answer?

The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely disproves your belief that "the threat of violence keeps everyone inline".

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

#430

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

[deleted]