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

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

#561

Post by warning26 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

crispyporkbites wrote: post #555

warning26 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it seems to be a one way trip. You can never suggest that we have gone too far. Apparently there can never be too many police, too much military spending, or too many people in prison. They only right answer is more of that, please. Personally, I think it's not taken far enough. Leveraging force to eliminate ignorance would, I believe, benefit society. If we allow those who would push untruths for either person…

How do you define ignorance? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

Flat earthers? Anti-vaxxers?

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

#562

Post by b112 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #539

bufferoverflow wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, no, it's a false equivocation. What do you do with really bad / evil people who got caught doing evil things (there's enough evidence to put them in prison). I never heard a good answer from an anarchist. You have to realize there are truly evil people out there. People who will assault innocent people, who will torture, who will rape, who will murder, who will do all of the above to a toddler. And will force t…

I mean, do you like that those people get off now if they’re powerful? Or if a cop decides to do that either nothing happens or they get let go with a million dollar pension? At least in a flat society you’d have an equal say to advocate for w/e you thought is just. Personally for me, and many others who lean left, prison or death doesn’t sit right because it doesn’t address the root of the problem and it’s often use…

Holy whataboutism!

With no laws, no police, no jails, no courts, and no justice system, everyone on of those incredibly evil people mention in the prior comment goes 100% free to continue their reign of terror.

Yet, of course, that's exactly the same as some people who slip through the cracks of a justice system that catches many such people a year. Prosecutes them with attempts to be fair. Puts them in jail so they can't hurt others.

Yup. Because someone might slip through the cracks, well.. that's precisely the same as what the prior poster said!

What a false equivalency.

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

#563

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

baconandeggs wrote: post #505

cortesoft wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before. So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight? We can’t get together and decide to curtail individual choice so that we avoid a tragedy of the commons? I don’t think throwing our hands up in the air and just continuing to destroy commons after commons is a good strategy.

> So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight? No, I didn't say any of that. All I said is what is bad for society is also bad for the individual.

While this may be true, you seem to be ignoring the prisoner's dilemma part of this... yes, society (and the individuals in it) will be better off if everyone cooperates, but as an individual, it is still always better to defect.

Imagine, for example, there are two companies that make widget foo. They are identical, except Company A charges less than Company B, but Company A pollutes a bunch.

As a society, we want everyone to buy from company B. We would all be better off.

However, that isn't my choice as a consumer. I either buy from B and pay more, and company A still pollutes (one person out of thousands doesn't change the amount of pollution).

Or, I get the cheaper thing from company A, and everything else stays the same.

Why wouldn't I shop at company A? My one purchase wont make or break the company, and it won't change the amount of pollution by any noticeable amount... but I will notice the cheaper price.

This is what a collective action problem is.

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

#564

Post by warning26 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

ssalazar wrote: post #560

warning26 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it seems to be a one way trip. You can never suggest that we have gone too far. Apparently there can never be too many police, too much military spending, or too many people in prison. They only right answer is more of that, please. Personally, I think it's not taken far enough. Leveraging force to eliminate ignorance would, I believe, benefit society. If we allow those who would push untruths for either person…

In the US ignorance and overuse of force go hand-in-hand, so I don't think this is going to work out too well.

Fair point, I can't imagine it would be possible to implement it in a way that wouldn't immediately become corrupted.

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

#565

Post by lemmonii » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:28 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.

Yes in a sense but ultimately evolutionary equilibriums are the reason why. When everybody is a dove, being a hawk is very good, be it psychopaths, sociopaths or random opportunistic anti-social behavour.

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

#566

Post by b112 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #544

graeme wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 But how do you stop a bad person from amassing power in an anarchist system? As a simple example, how would you deal with highway robbers? Those were omnipresent in societies before states gained strength.

I mean, did they rob peasants or the lords of the land with their amassed stolen wealth...? A community can decide to cast someone out, reprimand them, imprison them, etc. The whole idea of restorative justice can actually exist when a community is able to address it.

What the? A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism! How can you cast someone out, without gates? Guards? Walls?

How can you throw them out? Prevent them from returning?

Do you think the robbers will just stop, because you said "Stop!". I feel like you're trolling here. I could of course be wrong, but it feels that way.

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

#567

Post by bserge » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:30 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.

It may be hard to believe, but most people only think about themselves and their family. And they'll do anything, with the justification being that "it needed to be done". They can have PTSD and nightmares afterwards, but in the moment they'll do anything.

People don't like to sit at a table and talk it out, and if the results are not to their liking, they'll just abandon diplomacy and switch to violence.

They're not psychopaths, that's just primal survival instincts.

Actual psychopaths and sociopaths are a minority, although a pretty powerful one since they don't care about your unwritten, unenforced social norms.

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

#568

Post by RandoHolmes » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #515

RandoHolmes wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that you've found even a single one means the laws do, in fact, prevent these things from happening.

That's just how logic works.

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

#569

Post by marricks » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #562

marricks wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, do you like that those people get off now if they’re powerful? Or if a cop decides to do that either nothing happens or they get let go with a million dollar pension? At least in a flat society you’d have an equal say to advocate for w/e you thought is just. Personally for me, and many others who lean left, prison or death doesn’t sit right because it doesn’t address the root of the problem and it’s often use…

Holy whataboutism! With no laws, no police, no jails, no courts, and no justice system, everyone on of those incredibly evil people mention in the prior comment goes 100% free to continue their reign of terror. Yet, of course, that's exactly the same as some people who slip through the cracks of a justice system that catches many such people a year. Prosecutes them with attempts to be fair. Puts them in jail so they…

I mean sure in a society where no one holds anyone accountable that would happen. That’s not what anyone is actually advocating for.

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

#570

Post by lemmonii » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

DeusExMachina wrote: post #36

Funny how any ideology can take our common beliefs and say: "See? You are one of us". I didn't know who this guy was until he died last week and was celebrated as a great thinker. I am not familiar with his body of work. But if it's along the lines of "all good is on my side and all bad is on the enemy's side" he was not a thinker. He was just an ideologue.

Would you kick a baby on the sidewalk? If you answered no you are totally one of us!