Live data from Hacker News

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

theanarchistlibrary.org

521–530 of 839 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that voluntary donations isn't enough to run much at all, even for organizations that the worker is in control of. And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.

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.

That's how taxes work though. If you want to be part of society (have a job, employ others, own real estate or a business), then you have to pay taxes on those. After all, the well-being of the economy is a public good maintained by the state. If you don't participate in any of those ways, then you don't need to pay taxes. If you try to participate in society but don't pay the tax for doing so, you get punished.

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

#522
post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism is fundamentally built on competition, it pits all participants against one another. Life is built on competition, life pits all participants against one another. Resources are not infinite.

Resources are not infinite but human imagination is. We already produce more food than needed, there is hunger in the world, but not because of shortage but for multiple other reasons. Main point is that humans are intelligent and we can choose where and how we compete or if we don't want to compete at all. Holocene extinction is mainly because humans collaborated in much better way than any other animal can. Life mi…

> there is hunger in the world, but not because of shortage but for multiple other reasons.

That there's always been hunger in the world, even when we didn't produce more food than needed tells you production of food is not the resource limiting the distribution of food, other resources are. Even with all the imagination and collaboration of every communal government in the world to a scale never seen before in history, hunger is still a huge problem, because food is not the only resource, everything is a resource: time, interest, emotions, infrastructure, goods, distribution, people, communities, everything, and they compete with one another for our time and attention.

Everything is in competition, even your ideas and mine right now, and that's a good thing, but the first step to try and better our situation is to accept the reality of the natural world and not fight against it.

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

#524
post #367

> 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.

I don't think this is true. I highly doubt I'm a psychopath, but in my life I've still done things that required the threat of violence to stop me. For example, a while ago I was ticketed for speeding. I didn't like getting ticketed, so I am now more careful while driving, and while I like to think I was being safe before, I'm honest enough to admit that it's probably better for society that I drive more slowly.

And you know what? If the ticket didn't come with some threat of forceful punishment for no payment, I probably wouldn't have paid it, and I wouldn't be afraid of getting another one.

I also wouldn't pay taxes voluntarily, at least not nearly as much as I pay now.

I do these things because I am scared of the law. I don't think I'm unusual, and I don't think I'm a psychopath. So unless the threat model is only serious crime, I don't think psychopaths are the only issue. I think most people are not good players once a community grows large enough to afford anonymity.

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

#525

> 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…

The other flaw with that example is that there is obvious social pressure. If you try to cut the line, people will likely confront you. Situations where there’s no social pressure are different. During University, I was a believer in co-ops as a form of organization. I lived in and was actively involved in student housing co-ops. During grad school, I lived in a large house with 12 other people. I was the house organ…

> I’m pretty sure their education wasn’t self-funded

I would clarify that they have not gotten a studentship either.

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

#526
I'm pretty used to this sort of inverted 'No True Scotsman' (you know, if you believe then you're really a ) assertion about Christianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Feminism, Objectivism, Belief in the Paranormal or UFOs, and whatever John McAffee is currently raving about. I will, however, confess to some amusement at seeing any careful parsing of the rules defining anarchism.

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

#527
post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.

This was a fantastic essay by a first-wave feminist about the "tyrrany of structurelessness". The idea is basically that if you abolish formal hierarchies, hieararhcies will be established but they'll be informal ones, outside any system of checks and balances. It was dealing with a smaller scale that an entire political system, but it stuck with me and I think it's relevant here: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyr…

This same tyranny exists with money. The beauty of financial transactions as work and recognition is that there's never any ambiguity as far as your work being valued. In academia you have, on the other hand, things such as nebulous awards and recognition of placement on a publication. These things have real implications for career placement. That can be an analogous sort of tyranny, I think.

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

#528
post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> is, in some sense, the definition of violence No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. >professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. >The fact that there are lifelong criminals comple…

> No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I was eliding what I thought was the obvious conclusion. But let me be more explicit. If someone is determined to do something, and you are determined to stop them, the result will be an escalation that leads to taking actions that hurt, damage, or kill the other person.

> It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals.

You just restated the original assertion I responded to, again without evidence or argument. Why not try responding to the ideas I presented?

> That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise.

That should be their only role. The biggest problem with police is that they are doing a ton of other jobs that they are not qualified to do. A firefighter is trained to put out fires. A paramedic is trained to perform lifesaving medical procedures. Pretty much the only thing a police officer brings to an emergency is a gun. And most emergencies cannot be solved with a gun. A car accident can't be solved with a gun. A cat stuck in a tree can't be solved (except in the loosest sense) with a gun. A psychiatric emergency can't be solved with a gun. But a handful of emergencies can only be solved with a gun - an armed bank robbery, a terrorist attack. And many more situations can only be resolved because the authorities can wield the threat of violence. Consider a criminal investigation for instance. When the feds show up at your business to request financial records, they don't usually carry guns. But even though you may not want to give them documents that will incriminate you, that's still preferable to the investigators calling the police and seizing the files themselves while you sit in the back of the police car.

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

#529

> 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'd be interested to see an application of sortition as a government principle. It's government by random selection, similar to jury duty, and was used by ancient Athens. Wikipedia lists out the disadvantages, so nobody is claiming it's a perfect system. But I think it could eliminate many of the problems with modern "democracy", including gerrymandering, lack of diversity, distrust of "deep state", lobbying. Everyon…

Yeah, sortition looks very promising, I recently read this article describing it:

https://newpol.org/issue_post/the-return-of-democracy-by-lot...

My main concern with it, is that black people (and BLM supporters in general) are routinely excluded from jury duty in the US, so if there's a system in place that could exclude people from sortition, that would be ripe for abuse

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

#530

> 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…

Funnily enough, as an anarchist, I never heard before that removing the government (or hierarchical use of violence) would remove violence from the world. There are plenty of ideas on how to keep law and order in an anarchic society. I recommend you to read The Machinery of Freedom (by David Friedman) or check out a summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o TLDR: One way to keep order is having privat…

If you're an anarcho-capitalist, that's cool and interesting, but I think it's quite distinct from the more left-wing forms of anarchism people usually talk about (that revolve around self-organizing democratic cooperatives).

I actually like a lot of things about Freidman's work, but I don't think it would actually function. The issue is that at the end of the day it's still just armed gangs living in tension with each other. Peace is retained as long as it's more profitable than war, but that's no longer the case when one gang is stronger than the others. In our world, I think you'd pretty much immediately see Amazon Security Forces start annexing all their smaller neighbors, thus making ASF stronger so they can annex more and more. This scales up until there are just a few large organizations (ASF, Google Army, Exxon Defense Group, etc) who are equally enough balanced - or until there is only one. These large organizations have contiguous territories, borders, and monopolies on violence.

Anarchist just can't last. It's like try to make a sculpture of water. Even if you could shape it, it'll immediately move towards the lowest-energy state. Without something to stop them, the strong will immediately begin seizing power from the weak and ultimately culimnate straight back to governmental entities with monopolies on violence. Which is how we live now.

Post reply on HN