Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 839 posts

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

#631

Post by TulliusCicero »

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.

Tons of crimes meaningfully cross geographic boundaries.

> in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up.

Do I need to point out the obvious here? Uber and Lyft are subject to whatever states they operate in, including those police forces.

The ancap police forces you're talking about would be subject to...what, exactly?

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

#632

Post by pera »

b112 wrote: post #556
tekkk wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the failing of any devout believers who walk the line between delusion and reality so much, that they become unable to see their own actions from a critical point of view. Those with more grounded views I'd say tend to drift off from the extremity and channel their energy into something else. It's sometimes a shame when the idea these believers, not just anarchists, present might be plausible yet they can't a…

Yes, like decades ago, when the Senior VP of PETA thought all animal testing was wrong, unless of course it was to help her, because who else would fight to stop animal testing? -- https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypo... PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals: “I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufact…

I am not sure that I understand your argument here: are you saying a person who is against animal testing shouldn't consume products that were tested on animals during their development? If that's the case I think that would be an unattainable standard of morality. Everything we are as a society and as individuals are in part thanks to our use of animals, and I don't think any PETA member denies this fact.

Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.

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

#633

Post by TaylorAlexander »

gwerbret wrote: post #623
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re…

> It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?

I genuinely don’t see a contradiction? Let’s work hard to eliminate animal testing, even if that means developing new technology to solve the problems we’re currently trying to solve with animal testing. In the meantime this position would advocate to rapidly end all non-survival related animal products like cheeseburgers, while allowing some nuance for life saving medicine. Seems perfectly reasonable?

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

#634

Post by sdfin »

marricks wrote: post #506
sdfin wrote: 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.

Well, if you have an area of high inequality suppressed by an outside force I'm sure some "bad" groups could form because they want to challenge those outside forces. If you have an example of a mafia formed in a stable area without inequality or hierarchies I'd be pretty interested. People in general like the path of least resistance and only turn "violent" when they feel they have to. However, if your view is most…

"A stable area without inequalities" is a fantasy, there never was such a place. People is different, have different bodies, different minds, I never knew about any "stable area without inequalities".

I believe that most people are good, but there are also some people who are evil/psychopaths, and I don't see why they wouldn't organize a tyrannical hierarchy, they could use violence and other means to rise, I see it as a risk.

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

#635

Post by haroldp »

luckylion wrote: post #542
haroldp wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to. We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable. Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before. This argu…

> But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to.

Do you think that 7-11 is itching to shoot up AM/PM? Would you still buy your Slurpies there if they stared?

> We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable.

Drug cartels are an artifact of the state. There are no drug cartels without drug prohibition.

> Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before.

Would you keep paying for cops that did that? Or hire different ones?

> This argument sounds good in theory

It's not my argument, especially. I'm not an anarchist. :)

> it needs some explanation why states and individuals act irrational in that regard all the time

I think that's very fair. But I think you will find that at the bottom of mafia violence is rational decision-making. But private rights-enforcement is a different game with very different rewards for the actors.

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

#636

Post by blhack »

wavefunction wrote: post #192
blhack wrote: post #186

Is there a name for this type of thing where you label yourself as something that everybody already understands, but then try to bait and switch the definition on them? Anarchists: we don’t believe in anarchy! We believe in the human spirit and peace and harmony! Satanist: we don’t believe in evil, we believe in love and treating each other with respect and kindness! I see this pop up all the time in politics and it’…

>everybody already understands Seems like a problematic assumption to make.

Do you mean for non-native speakers? It seems like this bizarre “anarchy doesn’t really mean anarchy it actually means the opposite!” Sort of stuff would just further confuse somebody.

Funnily enough: this is why I think AI is so hard. How could you train an AI to be able to decode everything necessary to know if somebody means “anarchy lack of order” or “anarch: lots of order”.

It take SO much context to get that right. Like you have to make lots of assumptions about what the other person is thinking, what their background and political affiliation is. Very complex problem.

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

#637

Post by blhack »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #213
blhack wrote: post #186

Is there a name for this type of thing where you label yourself as something that everybody already understands, but then try to bait and switch the definition on them? Anarchists: we don’t believe in anarchy! We believe in the human spirit and peace and harmony! Satanist: we don’t believe in evil, we believe in love and treating each other with respect and kindness! I see this pop up all the time in politics and it’…

Well, satanism has always been about the irony, so I wouldn't call it a bait and switch. It's meant to be an obvious satire, showing off the obvious flaws present in judeo-christianity. People often take satanism literally so they don't have to confront their own problematic belief system. I imagine many anarchist movements follow a similar pattern.

Yes that’s exactly what I mean! Just curious if there is a name for this sort of thing. Irony, I guess?

“We say satanism, but really what we mean is the opposite of satanism ;-)”

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

#639

Post by sdfin »

tehjoker wrote: post #504
sdfin wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you eliminate private property? Or are you suggesting something different?

Yes, both anarchists and socalists share a desire to abolish private property. The major differences are in their strategy and transition states.

Yes. I don't understand why, in the case of socialists, do they believe that the gobernment can manage wealth and resources better than private owners.

And regarding anarchists, I don't understand how would they distribute scarce resources.

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

#640

Post by pera »

gwerbret wrote: post #623
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re…

> It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?

I don't see the contradiction, it is similar to say "we ultimately need to stop burning fossil fuels" while using Internet and living in a city.
Post reply on HN