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

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

#771

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

ric2b wrote: post #732

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually have to do the fight to the death, all you need is a society in which people are willing to do it. Because that provides deterrence, which eliminates most of the would-be murderers, the same as the existing system except that you don't have to deal with getting it wrong based on second hand accounts or corruption because the people handing out the consequences are the witnesses. Notice that for the…

Anyone in any society will try to defend themselves from murder by any means available to them. So if that's all the defense Anarchism has from murderers, it will definitely have more murderers than any society that adds any extra countermeasures.

Not necessarily. In a society where people are expected to run away and rely on the police to catch them later, more murderers may get away, because more of the victims run away instead of defending themselves but then the police never catch them.

It's obviously easier to "catch" a murderer while you're still in the room with them than after they have a ten hour head start and you have to depend on unreliable third party testimony to even identify them.

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

#772

Post by Nursie » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #765

Nursie wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will build structures. These structures are called gangs, and their leaders warlords.

Or states. As long as the concentration of power in the hands of nation states have been the foundation for most of the worst mass murders in human history, it seems quaint to worry that people arguing for making power shared and collective rather than allowing it to be concentrated will do worse.

In democratic states power is shared and collective. That's the point.

They will do worse, look around you at wherever there is a power vacuum. What follows? Violence.

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

#773

Post by pandaman » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #745

pandaman wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By this definition all land is free as you can go ahead, inhabit it and get weapons or pay some members of the community.

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

#774

Post by pandaman » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #766

pandaman wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one explanation. The question I have is more of the "what are you going to do when some people will get together and apply concerted violence to you (not dissimilar to the way the government works right now)?". I have not seen a single attempt to answer this in the few hundred comments. It appears most anarchists do not even realize this possibility even exists.

Right-flavored anarchism (eg anarcho-capitalism, cryptoanarchism) addresses this question directly - a plurality of competing defense companies that would be incentivized away from actually fighting as it would be unprofitable.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference with feudalism where plurality of land lords provided the same service?

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

#775

Post by rhn_mk1 » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #761

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it has everything to do with "A "community" which makes "communal decisions"", whatever you call it. I hope Merriam-Webster clears that up: "Definition of government 1 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization"

I specifically said that "community" which makes "communal decisions" is not anarchy. You've simply claimed it does, then mentioned "governing authority", which is not entirely in line, now is it?

You're right on the strength of my argument, but you're wrong on anarchy not being able to create governments (in the M-W definition above). But I'm not going to argue this any more.

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

#776

Post by murgindrag » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #764

vorpalhex wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a recent attempt in Capital Hill at creating an area where everyone was equal, and as I recall a bunch of people seized power and went on to cause havoc and violence... How do you prevent someone from building too much power? Well, you need to cap their reserves of soldiers/hardware/supplies. In order to do that you inherently need a stronger entity to enforce those caps...

An early premise of anarchist movements was that there are already someone trying to grab too much power , namely nation states. As such a large proportion of anarchist thought is down to how to organise and build bottom up structures with the intent of matching and being able to counter and destroy the power structures of nation states. Now ask yourself why you assume they'd be unwilling to build structures capable…

> Now ask yourself why you assume they'd be unwilling to build structures capable of resisting attempts to take power, when that is basically the raison d'etre for these groups.

Not unwilling. Unable. Fighting against something rarely works to bring about productive change. Fighting for something is harder, but often does.

refs: French Revolution. Animal Farm. Etc.

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

#777

Post by mindslight » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #774

mindslight wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right-flavored anarchism (eg anarcho-capitalism, cryptoanarchism) addresses this question directly - a plurality of competing defense companies that would be incentivized away from actually fighting as it would be unprofitable.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference with feudalism where plurality of land lords provided the same service?

Peasants didn't have much mobility between lords, therefore they were seemingly coerced. Would anarcho-capitalism as stated necessarily play out similarly? Who knows.

The core of anarchism is the heuristic of rejecting hierarchies and coercion. A negative doesn't make for a compelling mass movement, hence all the different flavors are attempts at imagining structures that could replace the current ones. They all have obvious potential failure modes, but the core remains - downsizing the structures of arbitrary authority.

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

#778

Post by murgindrag » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #752

murgindrag wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pow…

Well, before my first post I reread the Wikipedia article.

I will mention there's a bit of a dance with definitions with some ideologies which I find irksome. This is true here. Yes, there is some definition which can dodge any specific criticism, but those definitions aren't mutually coherent or consistent. You either get problem A or problem B. You can't use one definition to address one and another definition for the other.

This is common of many ideologies. I've found this to be especially true when talking with feminists. They bounce between a push for equality (for example, abolishing employment structures which favor men), and a push for changes which favor women (for example, feminists in divorce law push for policies which favor the mother). When they get caught in a contradiction, the definition changes like a squiggly fish. That lack of rational, critical conversation translates into ineffective tactics, and a failure to achieve change.

Ya' gotta pick one definition. Then we can talk about it.

Since, ironically, you'd like me to find authoritative references before I talk more, here's one I found on Google:

anarchy

1a : absence of government

b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the war zone

b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature— Israel Shenker

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

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

#779

Post by pandaman » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #777

pandaman wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the difference with feudalism where plurality of land lords provided the same service?

Peasants didn't have much mobility between lords, therefore they were seemingly coerced. Would anarcho-capitalism as stated necessarily play out similarly? Who knows. The core of anarchism is the heuristic of rejecting hierarchies and coercion. A negative doesn't make for a compelling mass movement, hence all the different flavors are attempts at imagining structures that could replace the current ones. They all have…

This is exactly my impression too. E.g. the OP article begins with characterizing anarchists as out of touch dreamers: Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. Judging by the name of the site it appears to be a positive characteristic too, which adds to confusion.

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

#780

Post by haroldp » Sun, Sep 06, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

joseluis wrote: post #757

haroldp wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

AnCaps also support a system of law.