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

741–750 of 839 posts

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

#741

Post by natmaka »

likeclockwork wrote: post #679
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…

Hierarchical use of force is replaced with community use of force. In anarchism people have to take individual responsibility. There's no point saying "someone should do something about this", you're someone, do what needs to be done.

Indeed. However it works better in a small community, small enough to offer no real anonymity.

Wherever something is wrong, something is too big.

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

#742

Post by ywei3410 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #633
gwerbret wrote: post #623

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. 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?

There's a difference between,

> we ultimately need to end animal testing

and,

> work hard to eliminate animal testing

One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals?

By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them.

The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?

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

#743

Post by boomboomsubban »

stale2002 wrote: post #738
boomboomsubban wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. Really? You think that of a society that everyone together created the rules for, built for their own well being, and that they are voluntary a part of would be full of people willing to throw that all away to help someone who already spit in their…

> would be full of people willing to throw that all away People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time. For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society? No, I don't think so. I think that many people's friends and family will be perfectly willing to continue to interact with someone who disagrees with the current state o…

>For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society

This isn't "some nebulous concept of society," this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of. You say that you wouldn't abandon a family member, but what they are doing is akin to standing up and with a clear mind stating "I don't consider you family and want nothing to do with you." That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person.

>mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food.

These people chose not to have access to food. They are not "disadvantaged," they are facing the consequences they knew they would face for their actions. There's no need to immediately starve them, but they know they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it.

>Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive

It is not "my concept of society," it is something the society together builds. Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist.

Most of your arguments have put "me" as the ruler of this society and justify actions as them rebelling against me. This is not how the power structure goes. People may be willing to help those rebelling against "me," but they are less willing to aid someone rebelling against something they themselves chose to enact. Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances.

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

#744

Post by jokethrowaway »

fault_lines wrote: post #691
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.

How do you amass power in an anarchist system? In capitalism you generally amass power by amassing capital. What's the equivalent under anarchism?

Anarchism and capitalism are compatible, see anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested in checking out this explanation: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

That said, I agree with your criticism of communism / anarcho-syndacalism: if you remove capitalism, you are moving power into party politics, which creates even greater inequality to what we have today and explains the horror of communism we've seen in the past century.

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

#745

Post by jokethrowaway »

pandaman wrote: post #695
fault_lines wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current geopolitical situation prevents anarchists from living in their desired society because there is zero (or practically zero) free land to create such a society without it existing within a state that is not anarchist. This should be obvious.

That's my question! How is "free" land is different from any other? It's just a convention established by the government i.e. if you try to settle on somebody's land then eventually armed people will show up and make you go. So how is it different from the anarchy? Who will provide the "freedom" of the land and is incapable to do it now?

Free land is a land where I can live without someone threatening me with violence if I don't share part of the profits I make with my labour.

The freedom can be provided by the inhabitants of such land, either by getting weapons themselves or by paying some members of this community.

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

#746

Post by jokethrowaway »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #534
marricks wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hier…

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…

In an anarchic society with no government to protect people, the people would pay whoever likes this line of work to protect them. A system of private law enforcememt could emerge out of anarchy. The interactions between different law enforcement agencies (whether with simple agreements or third party private arbitration courts) and the different internal rules would create a market in which consumers are free to choose what laws make sense for them, or at least where laws converge towards what all people want. "The Machinery of Freedom" contains a more in depth description.

As an addendum, in an anarchic society victimless crimes wouldn't be crimes so there would be significantly less people to imprison / execute / send to force labour camps.

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

#747

Post by jokethrowaway »

b112 wrote: post #601
marricks wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You cannot just give people stern looks. The end result is, you need to be able to use violence, against those willing to use it against you. Note, that can be a last step, but without it? Those who care not about stern looks, "talking tos", or cold shoulders will literally take everything you have, and kill everyone. So now you fall to mob rule, lynchings, and what? Power of the strong man? As soon as you organize,…

You can organise without a government, using the free market. Having competing law enforcement firms would bring competition to a state monopoly that does little to nothing to prevent actual crime and persecute tons of innocent people.

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

#748

Post by natmaka »

akiselev wrote: post #728
natmaka wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments replaced those robbers, you just cannot escape nor defend yourself :-)

Most people couldn't escape or defend themselve from robbers if they wanted to, let alone vote against them. That's why governments replaced them.

AFAIK (at least in most European countries) such robbers didn't attack villages, and people willing to travel tried hard to do it in groups (pilgrims, merchants).

You now have nearly no way to escape your (Occidental) government. Wherever you go, whatever you do, whoever you associate with.

If you really believe you can change the power-that-be by voting let's say we disagree.

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

#749

Post by dmwallin »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #734
lefrenchy wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument can be applied in the same way to the current economic system in the US (capitalism). The free market capitalist system has the shared presumption that free markets are efficient and will allocate resources effectively. This shared presumption is unrealistic in that same fashion, since entirely free markets are not possible (market manipulation, monopoly, etc...). No reasonable anarchist will say their…

Monopolies may happen because of superior technology (or better placement, in short, it's much better for the consumers) or because of politics. If it's for superior technology, I think the monetary gain is justified. Also, in a world without patents or copyright, everyone is free to reproduce the technology, if they can. For the market to be manipulated, you would need something that lives outside of market rules, n…

You tell me the rules and I’ll show you how your free market can be manipulated from within the rules. How do you propose to prevent things such as collusion (free association) and price manipulation.

All systems of economics are also systems of power. If the only system of power is the economic one than your economy is your de facto government.

If a structure for “governmental“ power is identical to the economic structure you have zero ability to fix abusive power imbalances when they eventually arise. It’s the same reason it’s good to have many checks and balances within government itself. Every structure has flaws, and any singular structure of power will have it’s flaws exploited unchecked.

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

#750

Post by waihtis »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #739
waihtis wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You think that there are some people incapable of living reasonably without force, and that group does not include yourself. Yes I think so. Are you arguing there are no bad people in the entire human populace? Regardless, it doesn't make me "special."

I think there are people who may be unable to act rationally in any situation, but I don't think force will solve their problems and I do think situations could arise where I end up as one of them. I think humans are largely a product of their environment, and most of the "bad" ones had experiences that made them act that way. They are still capable of acting rationally. Superior to others is "special," even if you c…

> I think there are people who may be unable to act rationally in any situation

> They are still capable of acting rationally

Which one is it?

Why people act like the do is irrelevant to the system you are proposing. Or are you saying that abolishing all enforcement systems will cause everything bad in the universe to disappear?

Anyhow, I think we've milked this conversation for as long as it has capability to provide value, so perhaps we agree to disagree on this topic.

Post reply on HN