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

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

#471

Post by yters » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

JacksonGariety wrote: post #427

sneak wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" ...

what we really need to do is abolish the people, source of all our people problems. no people, no problems

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

#472

Post by vladTheInhaler » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #429

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".

The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary.

Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much either let them do what they want, or not let them do it. "Not letting people do what they are determined to do", is, in some sense, the definition of violence. In this scenario, you could either enact it yourself, by pushing them out the front door, or you could leave it to professional violence-doers, such as the police. Either way the result is the same - the person is no longer able to do the thing which they still very much want to do.

The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary - there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people. I fully support a restorative and rehabilitative approach to justice, but no amount of rehabilitation will let us release the golden state killer back into society. And as long as you keep him locked up, you are doing so through violence. The prison walls aren't really the thing keeping him in there - those can be subverted with enough patience and planning - ultimately it's the people in uniforms who will tackle him and drag him back in if he tries to leave.

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

#473

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:02 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…

The problem with the intro is that it's flat out wrong. It shot say

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are always behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.

Which is the fundamental flaw of anarchism.

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

#474

Post by LoSboccacc » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:02 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…

basically anarchy works as long as you ignore everything we know about the human nature, interpersonal relationships and the logistic that make possible for a section of the population to hyperspecialize and drive progress.

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

#475

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #446

boomboomsubban wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How does it make me ”special”, if the majority is exactly the same as me? I think that’s the opposite of special.

You think there is a group of people inferior to you that need to be ruled.

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

#476

Post by DeusExMachina » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

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…

> I'm sure the experts disagree on some points

That is quite an understatement, given that many experts made complete 180 turns contradicting what they said earlier.

But let's assume that they all agree on some point. Epidemiologists are still epidemiologists, i.e., people that know about diseases. They can inform you about how viruses spread, or what measures work best.

But they don't decide policy. Society needs to balance much more than just this epidemic. No intervention has zero unintended consequences.

Something that is getting clearer as numbers show more and more that the lockdowns so loved by the experts cause far more damage in other aspects of life, like premature death of untreated cancer patients, suicides, starvation, and so on.

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

#477

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #395

boomboomsubban wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voluntary association, not voluntary donations. People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore.

> People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore. Sounds like taxes to me.

I never said there wouldn't be taxes.

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

#478

Post by haroldp » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #454

haroldp wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, anarcho-capitalists substantially agree with this collectivist anarchist, but still consider police worthwhile for your edge cases. They just want to voluntarily pay for private policing instead of having a monopoly impose it.

I can't see private police existing as the main source of violence without the different private police forces waging wars over each other to determine who gets to police what district. I mean, in what way would private police be different from a Mafia?

Ancaps believe that street wars would be notably unprofitable, and competing "rights enforcement agencies" would quickly normalize their relations with one another, in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up.

> in what way would private police be different from a Mafia?

If you didn't like the service you were getting, you could stop paying for it.

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

#479

Post by boomboomsubban » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #459

boomboomsubban wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voluntary association, not voluntary donations. People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore.

How does banishment from society work? What happens to people who refuse to leave and still use the roads?

Those are kinds of decisions that the society should make.

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

#480

Post by srtjstjsj » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

conception wrote: post #437

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…

Your comment ties into the idea that some large percent (1-5%) of the population are sociopaths. (Link has some sources https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa... ) Quite simply many people behave without remorse of empathy and those traits are useful for gaining and taking power and using it against other.

Substantially more than 5% will align themselves with sociopaths, out of self-interest (greed or desperation)