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

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

#751

Post by seventhtiger » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 11:37 AM 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.

I honestly don't understand how that is unique at all. It sounds like every government that has ever existed. Once you define the community, its mechanism of decision, and the reprimands and punishments, I'm not sure what's less government about this than current government.

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

#752

Post by lucideer » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

murgindrag wrote: post #163

Mary-Jane wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it.

> ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In…

I really think you need to do some reading on what anarchism actually is before writing criticisms. It really isn't the thing you think it is.

> unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it.

Yes. Anarchism is about putting in place those constraints (via systems design rather than external enforcement since the latter requires amassing power in order to act as enforcer).

> Things like Democratic Structures...

You lost me here. Anarchism is democratic.

You seem to think anarchism is something emergent that existed before rules. It isn't. Anarchism is rules without centralising enforcement, not absence of rules. Feudalism in particular is the direct opposite of anarchism.

Please at least Google the term before you go and further.

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

#753

Post by dwighttk » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 11:46 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #164

dwighttk wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “nomy” in autonomy is law.

Then community autonomy means community law.

Community self law/rule

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

#754

Post by boomboomsubban » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 12:12 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #750

boomboomsubban wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 provid…

>Which one is it?

I believe through some accidents before or after birth lead to some people are completely unable to act reasonably. I don't think they are the people you consider "bad" but people with severe disabilities.

>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?

I don't think that the world is full of people who actively wish harm on others, and usually those people are trying to improve things for themselves. If we build a society based on making things good for everybody involved, these will be rare cases that society can address as they happen.

Put in simple terms, those people may currently be unwilling to act reasonably, but are completely capable in the right circumstances.

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

#755

Post by fault_lines » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 12:22 PM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #744

fault_lines wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

They most certainly are not. Some right-libertarians have convinced themselves that they are anarchists so that they can pretend to be radicals but that does not make it so. Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible, anarchism is a left-wing ideology that among other things, seeks the end of capitalism.

I don't know why you interpreted my comment as being a criticism of communism or anarcho-syndicalism (it was just a probing question to understand what somebody thought anarchism would look like), and neither does your criticism of those ideologies make much sense. I don't think you actually know what anarcho-syndicalism is if you think it involves party politics.

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

#756

Post by perl4ever » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #740

perl4ever wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. As a card carrying -archist, I think it should be pointed out that no -archy can be maintained unless most people behave reasonably most of the time, either. I'm not sure what my point is, ju…

For a gov employee "being reasonable" may mean "respect the chain of command, obey, apply the orders", and when the Great Leader isn't "reasonable" this may quickly and massively lead to Bad Things, as seen for example in the USSR, in Nazi Germany, Cambodia... Befehl ist Befehl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Being reasonable may mean following rules when contrary and/or corrupt orders are given. That is something that happens that has enormous value.

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

#757

Post by joseluis » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

haroldp wrote: post #628

joseluis wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean... what you are describing as a worst case is actually the current system.

I disagree. We currently have a system of law, and despite it not being perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least governments ar subject to it and are incentivied to adhere to it in form and in principle for the most part. That would not be the case with a free market of private violence for-hire...

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

#758

Post by vidarh » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #259

vidarh wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the KKK itself represents a coercive power structure acting without the consent of those it attempt to enforce power over, which is inherently not anarchist. If the KKK only tried to harass or harm people who had consented to be subject to them, then you'd have an argument.

This doesnt tally with the previous comment. Then you are saying anarchy has laws, but they cannot be enforced. So your interpretation is no laws (which can be enforced): then how would you prevent the KKK in forming (violating your rule) without a government to enforce "no minority killings, please"

No, I'm saying anarchy implies laws arranged by consent.

The existence of the KKK is not in violation of anything I suggested. If they want to be an abhorrent debating club, they should be free to.

But the moment they try to initiate aggression, it is justified for anyone to defend themselves, an anarchism would generally consider it justified for anyone to band together to defend themselves, against that aggression, up to and including e.g. creating militias or a standing police force.

The key points throughout are consent and voluntary association, and the ability to withdraw that consent at any time. Not absence of structure, but the minimal structure needed at any time, arranged by consent.

If anything, anarchists are obsessed with structure of society - that is why there are so incredibly many different anarchist ideologies.

I frankly find it bizarre that this is a difficult concept to understand, because conceptually it is very simple: Consider what happens if we delegate power bottom up, instead of appointing representatives who delegate power top to bottom.

In theory nothing needs to change other than that, if we believe that current systems accurately reflects the will of the people.

The reason we're even discussing this is that nobody - not supporters of anarchism or its detractors actually believe that current societies accurately reflects the will of the people.

But detractors assume that people will withhold consent to every structure they believe are needed to maintain a functioning society.

Ultimately it reflects a fear of democracy - a fear that most people will opt to let society collapse, and it's really quite odd to behold these arguments.

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

#759

Post by b112 » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

bantunes wrote: post #656

b112 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I know basics. It's gibberish, built upon mad fantasy.

On the contrary - mad fantasy is to think humans as they behave today is how they will always behave in the future. Humans used to roam around Africa and forage for food in tribes. Now I can reply to you, from another continent perhaps, by tapping my fingers on a tablet. To think humans will ever stop dreaming about more equitable systems of organization, and how to implement them, that truly is mad fantasy to me.

[flagged]

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

#760

Post by bena » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #709

bena wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Government is the logical conclusion of anarchy. The minute you have two people who want to do something together, you need rules.

Why can't they establish their cooperation rules between them, using existing static material (contract templates...) if they want to, without any third-party (for example a government) being mandatory?

First, who enforces the contract?

Second, it doesn't really matter. Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination.