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

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

#511

Post by torb-xyz » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

thomasahle wrote: post #435

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 think lots of anarchists are perfectly fine with putting some people in jail. Chomsky usually defines anarchism [1] by saying powers and hierarchies have to justify themselves. Keeping people safe can be a reasonable such justification. The point is just that such powers should never be taken for natural, and always be questioned. If jailing doesn't probably make people safer, then it loses its justification. [1] h…

Anarchists in general are quite negative to the prison system and often believes in alternatives, or at the very least tries to come up with alternatives (hard as that might be).

That being said, there are certainly situations where people with anarchism (or anarchism-like) beliefs have essentially jailed people. For example YPG/YPJ forces in Rojava certainly took IS/ISIL forces they won over as prisoners.

PS: Never ever heard of an anarchist that thinks the US prison system is anywhere near of justifying itself though, but that's probably something all radical leftists agree on.

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

#512

Post by yunderfall » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

This is a common rhetorical tactic used by people with unpopular ideas. They imply that most people just "don't understand" and would be on their side if they would simply become more informed.

The reality, in my experience, is that most people simply aren't interested in thinking deeply about social organization on a regular basis; and, of the people who are, most of them already understand your ideas and will disagree with them if everyone involved has the maturity to actually debate the issue in depth and say what they mean. No, I am not whatever label you want to apply to me. I may agree with aspects of your philosophy, but I probably disagree with others. But the vast majority of these groups don't want to hear it, because like Orwell said, there is nothing more maddening than someone who listens calmly, shows they clearly understand your point of view, and disagrees.

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

#513

Post by torb-xyz » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #211

torb-xyz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchists obviously don’t think this will come about by itself, they simply believe that it is possible to organize society in such a way that the statement above holds true. Anarchists will generally argue that todays society prevents that from being the case (at least to a large enough degree). The details of all this (strategies, how to make it work, etc) is at the core of a lot of anarchist theory.

That's what I find so weird about most criticisms of Anarchism. Anarchists like nothing more than building systems and methods, then seeing how they work or could be improved. The only way to differentiate different forms of anarchism is through the systems they think would be most effective, and the methods they think would be most effective to bring them about. It's just a lot harder to build peer-to-peer systems t…

Yeah, it's really funny how anarchism has this reputation for disorganisation. The anarchists I've met are super nerds about what is good democratic process going down to intricate details of how it all should be organised.

I guess there is probably also a big difference here between actual anarchists and people who merely sympathise with anarchism (like myself), possibly mainly because they have an anti-authoritarian inclination (which alone, an anarchist does not make).

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

#514

Post by blablabla123 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:36 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…

There is a wide spectrum between a full-blown authoritarian state and anarchism. I'd argue that democracy in its various forms takes a large fraction of that spectrum. There is parliamentary democracy, semi-direct democracy like in the economically well-off Switzerland and direct democracy that is not in place at any state yet. Any serious summary about a form of politics will emphasize that certain preconditions on economy and society are necessary, otherwise it will not work. Example: after the UdSSR ended, there was parliamentary democracy and a free market economy. But it was incredibly unstable - now Russia is close to being an authoritarian state. China tried to prevent the same fault and instead opened only the economy in a first step.

That said, even for direct democracy things need to happen. A vast majority of the population would have to get informed about major political issues sufficiently well. Also there is not "the Anarchy", rather it's a mixed pool of in part incompatible theories, that can very well have democratic structures. I think there are good ideas, but obviously right now in 2020 nothing of this would work.

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

#515

Post by komali2 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

RandoHolmes wrote: post #382

komali2 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens today, what do we do about it today? Are laws preventing mass shooters? Sociopathic killers?

The answer is yes. I'll never understand why so many people believe that if something isn't perfect, it's broken. All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios. They're just not preventing all of the them. And you know what? That's good. Freedom has inherent risk. I don't want to live in a…

> All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios

I don't find articles like this very often. I do find many articles of cia and fbi failure, of the nsa trampling constitutional freedoms, of tsa failing 98% of audits though.

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

#516

Post by bccdee » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #440

cortesoft wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that’s the point of the article. There are better, safer, kinder, and more efficient ways of coercing people (with kindness and strong social ties and obligations and contracts, for example) than using top-down laws. If you believe that the threat of violence isn’t the only way to organize a society’s rules, you’re most of the way there.

Violence isn't necessary 99% of the time, but the fact that it's available that last 1% is why it isn't necessary the other 99%. Some people are absolutely willing to exploit kindness, spurn obligations, and break contracts, if they can.

The fact that there exists a system of consequences backed by violence is what makes people follow social rules. Maybe the community's punishment for vandalism is a fine, or some kind of public service; I'm only willing to pay that penalty because of the threat of state violence being used against me if I don't. I'm all for minimizing the use of violence to enforce social mores as much as possible, but if it's not available at all, we start running into problems enforcing the milder, non-violent social consequences which we strive to use 99% of the time.

If someone attacks someone else and is sent to rehabilitative counseling, how do we make sure they go? In order to enforce the humane response, a violent response needs to exist as a backup.

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

#517

Post by marricks » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

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 find it hard to believe you've talked to any real anarchists, or at least listened to them. People like Noam Chomsky deal with that question extremely head on. Below is what I said on another comment...

> 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.

> 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.

Like half the comments on this thread are variations of "well bad people exist" and it's maddening because bad people exist in this system! And they're extremely powerful! We 100% do not deal with them largely because of the systems that are in place.

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

#518

Post by torb-xyz » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #473

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.

Anarchist societies certainly have rules and means of enforcing them, but the process of how the rules are radically more democratic than any liberal democracy. Look up EZLN or Rojava if you want to see practicing anarchist-like societies existing today.

I don't mean to be rude, but it frustrates me that whenever anarchism is discussed so many of the counter arguments are (intentionally or not) strawmen.

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

#519

Post by waihtis » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #475

waihtis wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are confused about what the discussion here concerns.

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

#520

Post by joseluis » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

haroldp wrote: post #478

username90 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry Mr. Gangster we are not gonna need your business protection services any more...

Yes, I can see it now. What could even go wrong with the privatization of violence?