Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1323335373840

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.
    I don't get how that's different from government
    In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.
    What happens when one community, in the middle of Wyoming, decides to ban cars. And then, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, one of the governed decides he or she doesn't like that. So, they... leave? Their options are "stick around, live under oppressive regime," or "wander off into the wilderness to die." What happens when one of the communities decides to ban leaving?

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.


    My reply to that is that my and my buddies have weapons and you're defenceless hippies. So I'm gonna make you work in the hot sun whilst I live in luxury while you're doing that I'll be banging your girlfriend. And your sister.

    Enjoy being peons!

    The precedent I cite is: all of recorded human history.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    As for the Somalia people, do you really want to get into a match where we talk about the atrocities perpetrated by states with a monopoly on power against places with no state? Because I can guarantee you the anarchist wins that discussion. Of course, when you look at things like Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia you say that those are states gone bad. Or they aren't the good states. That states don't necessarily have to be like that, they can be better, yet at the same time, you think every anarchic group has to be Somalia. You can't have it both ways.
    The fundamental problem is you can't provide other examples of anarchistic group outside of small enclaves leeching off a state. There aren't durable examples of Anti-Somalia for you to point to. On one side you have a range of states between the current high HDI states like Sweden/Norway etc, and the totalitarian hell holes like Nazi Germany, on the other side you have Somalia and Somalia.

    I'm going to try to respond to everyone at once, instead of piecemeal. It might make it harder, might make it easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the argument that any anarchic society is going to eventually develop into a state. The only people who I've known to intelligently hold anarchic beliefs don't seem to have an answer to that question. I tend to think that while anarchism is nice (I guess), it'll eventually become a state.

    The issue with it not immediately being a state though is that anarchists tend to have a very narrow concept of what a state is. I'm not sure they're entirely off base with it though. So something that you explicitly consent to isn't a state, because in theory you will be literally contractually bound, and your contract will have an opt out clause. So if you don't like the way things are going, you pull out.

    As for the whole "what happens to people who opt out?" That I'm not entirely sure of either. It's never made a lot of sense to me, but I can give a shot at perhaps a plausible answer. No one can actually survive on their own. At some point, you're either going to have to be far far geographically removed from other people, or you're going to have to join up with SOME group of people. Now, you may be able to pick a group that has the rules that you want to live by, unlike the state system of today, where you don't get to pick where you live (otherwise there would be far more citizens of the US).

    I'm confused by how this end state(as in people will end up forming States) can practically differ from today.

    1) People will eventually establish States

    2) These State will define a territory for themselves, for basic LE jurisdiction if nothing else. You can't have someone murder someone, run back to their house and secede, and boom they're off the hook, like the safe zone in a kids game.

    3)Since the amount of space is limited, we will run out of space outside of State control, or at least places that anyone would want. inland Antarctica will probably remain State free.

    4)States will logically wish to regulate who joins or doesn't join their State, and there is no higher authority to disallow it. If the State says no you aren't living here, what can you do about it?


    And look we're right back where we are now, with no guarantee that the States that do end up forming, will be better than the current States they are replacing. We have nearly countless examples of States that are worse than the States we have now. In fact even most current States can trace back through their history and will find that they are currently the best they have ever been as a State. This is certainly true of the US. But we have no Non-states that are improvements.

    You fail at providing a rational for you view on the key point:

    That the alleged freedom gained by doing away with the State will actually materialize. That is it won't be suppressed into the various stable but shitty States we have had in the past.

    Basically in the risk/benefit analysis, you have shown no benefits, beside a nebulous increase in 'freedom'. And you have shown nothing that mitigates the risk. Indeed even your 2 chosen examples of states that were worse than Anarchy, are still risks. There is no mechanism in your non-state world that would work to prevent the rise of Joedalph Hitlan.


  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    I mean jesus christ it's only been 150 years or so since slavery was abolished in the US. And it still exists in east Africa. It's not like we're extrapolating or guessing here. It's like we're saying the experiment has been done, and it seems that yes, people* do get off on oppressing their fellow humans for their own benefit, and they are "stupid enough" to do so.

    *Or a sufficient fraction of them, at least. And it doesn't take all that many before game theory kicks in and the average dude in the group would rather help out with the oppressing than be oppressed

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    You're the one simplifying it down to "bad" and "good" people, as though that's really the way the world works.

    Also, the populations you're working with are incredibly unrealistic. It's more that there would be 100 "normal" people and 30 "bad" people armed with assault weapons. They could absolutely rule with an iron fist. Or rather, 100,000 "normal" people and 30,000 "bad" people. But, as I said, that's not how the world works. We are not divided into rampaging sociopaths and normal, good citizens who would never hurt a fly. If someone was trying to "take over" by organizing people with weapons, most people in a community would probably support it because there's no government and who knows what kind of people are out there.

    I mean, banditry was a problem thousands of years ago in areas without a strong government, imagine what banditry is like when people have access to modern weapons? It'd be terrifying!

    Also, you don't think that power hungry people are stupid and petty enough to not maximize benefit and minimize risk? What planet are you from? People are not rational! Especially when they are in a position of power! They will be concerned with STAYING IN POWER above all else! If some people in the community go hungry because they murdered that one guy who mouthed off, it's no skin off their back because they have power and can just take what they need.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    As for the Somalia people, do you really want to get into a match where we talk about the atrocities perpetrated by states with a monopoly on power against places with no state? Because I can guarantee you the anarchist wins that discussion. Of course, when you look at things like Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia you say that those are states gone bad. Or they aren't the good states. That states don't necessarily have to be like that, they can be better, yet at the same time, you think every anarchic group has to be Somalia. You can't have it both ways.

    Except that there are numerous examples of states that are not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

    There are no real examples of anarchist "states" (as in groups larger than tribes or neighborhoods organized along anarchist principles) that have not fallen apart.

    So, yeah, Somalia remains a pretty major example of how a stateless society, especially in an area where resources are scarce but guns are not, can turn out to be horrible.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?


    So, the thing about the people is that only a very small percentage of them see themselves as bad or evil, and a much higher percentage of them commit crimes. Even if we rule out the obvious sociopaths and psychopaths we still get normal, moral people who will commit crimes.

    And the reason they will do this ends up being very simple.

    1) Notions of justice inherently favor the self. And when it comes down to it, people favor their clan in various dealings and tend to believe they're in the right

    2) It is natural to defend what you believe is right. And the concept of "defend" is not restricted to "the other guy physically attacks me first and i take up arms to stop it".

    3) When there is competition for resources people will favor those they know every time.

    These are the things that easily combine to create violence and competition in an anarchist society. These eventually create states as people consolidate power and accept the strongest into their notion of "one of us". This isn't even theoretical; we have seen this happen in many instances [and probably one of the best examples would be the Italian City-State periods]. At such a time there was no central authority or official central authority. The city states formed largely for protection and existed in states of quasi war for many hundreds of years.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.
    I don't get how that's different from government
    In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.
    What happens when one community, in the middle of Wyoming, decides to ban cars. And then, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, one of the governed decides he or she doesn't like that. So, they... leave? Their options are "stick around, live under oppressive regime," or "wander off into the wilderness to die." What happens when one of the communities decides to ban leaving?

    I'm not sure the people would sign on to a charter that would ban leaving. But I suppose that if everyone agreed to it, they have only themselves to blame. I also presume that a mechanism would be put into place by any reasonable group of people for modifying the rules of the community.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    Why do people deal drugs or join gangs when working at a minimum wage job is not only much safer but actually pays out more in the long run?

    You're questioning the notion of humans not pursuing collective rational self interest, but you haven't really posited what you believe to be the case, other than that you seemingly disagree with the idea that there will be violent offenders. I'm not sure that the idea that people have to band together to defend themselves against gangs of raiders is really a strong defense for the case of anarchy, at least compared to now, when we don't have to worry(for the most part) about this happening.

    Will greed and avarice just vanish in an anarchic community? How do you account for mass media, which will(and does so now) manipulate desire?

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.
    I don't get how that's different from government
    In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.
    What happens when one community, in the middle of Wyoming, decides to ban cars. And then, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, one of the governed decides he or she doesn't like that. So, they... leave? Their options are "stick around, live under oppressive regime," or "wander off into the wilderness to die." What happens when one of the communities decides to ban leaving?

    I'm not sure the people would sign on to a charter that would ban leaving. But I suppose that if everyone agreed to it, they have only themselves to blame. I also presume that a mechanism would be put into place by any reasonable group of people for modifying the rules of the community.

    What if my great great grandfather decided to ban leaving, but I want to leave?

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    As for the Somalia people, do you really want to get into a match where we talk about the atrocities perpetrated by states with a monopoly on power against places with no state? Because I can guarantee you the anarchist wins that discussion. Of course, when you look at things like Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia you say that those are states gone bad. Or they aren't the good states. That states don't necessarily have to be like that, they can be better, yet at the same time, you think every anarchic group has to be Somalia. You can't have it both ways.
    The fundamental problem is you can't provide other examples of anarchistic group outside of small enclaves leeching off a state. There aren't durable examples of Anti-Somalia for you to point to. On one side you have a range of states between the current high HDI states like Sweden/Norway etc, and the totalitarian hell holes like Nazi Germany, on the other side you have Somalia and Somalia.

    I'm going to try to respond to everyone at once, instead of piecemeal. It might make it harder, might make it easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the argument that any anarchic society is going to eventually develop into a state. The only people who I've known to intelligently hold anarchic beliefs don't seem to have an answer to that question. I tend to think that while anarchism is nice (I guess), it'll eventually become a state.

    The issue with it not immediately being a state though is that anarchists tend to have a very narrow concept of what a state is. I'm not sure they're entirely off base with it though. So something that you explicitly consent to isn't a state, because in theory you will be literally contractually bound, and your contract will have an opt out clause. So if you don't like the way things are going, you pull out.

    As for the whole "what happens to people who opt out?" That I'm not entirely sure of either. It's never made a lot of sense to me, but I can give a shot at perhaps a plausible answer. No one can actually survive on their own. At some point, you're either going to have to be far far geographically removed from other people, or you're going to have to join up with SOME group of people. Now, you may be able to pick a group that has the rules that you want to live by, unlike the state system of today, where you don't get to pick where you live (otherwise there would be far more citizens of the US).

    I'm confused by how this end state(as in people will end up forming States) can practically differ from today.

    1) People will eventually establish States

    2) These State will define a territory for themselves, for basic LE jurisdiction if nothing else. You can't have someone murder someone, run back to their house and secede, and boom they're off the hook, like the safe zone in a kids game.

    3)Since the amount of space is limited, we will run out of space outside of State control, or at least places that anyone would want. inland Antarctica will probably remain State free.

    4)States will logically wish to regulate who joins or doesn't join their State, and there is no higher authority to disallow it. If the State says no you aren't living here, what can you do about it?


    And look we're right back where we are now, with no guarantee that the States that do end up forming, will be better than the current States they are replacing. We have nearly countless examples of States that are worse than the States we have now. In fact even most current States can trace back through their history and will find that they are currently the best they have ever been as a State. This is certainly true of the US. But we have no Non-states that are improvements.

    You fail at providing a rational for you view on the key point:

    That the alleged freedom gained by doing away with the State will actually materialize. That is it won't be suppressed into the various stable but shitty States we have had in the past.

    Basically in the risk/benefit analysis, you have shown no benefits, beside a nebulous increase in 'freedom'. And you have shown nothing that mitigates the risk. Indeed even your 2 chosen examples of states that were worse than Anarchy, are still risks. There is no mechanism in your non-state world that would work to prevent the rise of Joedalph Hitlan.


    I have already said that I think a powerful argument against the anarchist is the notion that States will eventually form. I think that's a great argument to use against them, and I don't know what their response is going to be.

    The only thing that they have going for them is that any states that do form will at least have the consent of those that they govern, which they don't have now. The concern they have to is to have a just social organization, and the only thing that can render an organization just is if the membership freely consents to the organization. You (and I) may disagree about what makes a particular organization Just (in that we disagree with the anarchist), but that's their motivating concern.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    You're the one simplifying it down to "bad" and "good" people, as though that's really the way the world works.

    Also, the populations you're working with are incredibly unrealistic. It's more that there would be 100 "normal" people and 30 "bad" people armed with assault weapons. They could absolutely rule with an iron fist. Or rather, 100,000 "normal" people and 30,000 "bad" people. But, as I said, that's not how the world works. We are not divided into rampaging sociopaths and normal, good citizens who would never hurt a fly. If someone was trying to "take over" by organizing people with weapons, most people in a community would probably support it because there's no government and who knows what kind of people are out there.

    I mean, banditry was a problem thousands of years ago in areas without a strong government, imagine what banditry is like when people have access to modern weapons? It'd be terrifying!

    Also, you don't think that power hungry people are stupid and petty enough to not maximize benefit and minimize risk? What planet are you from? People are not rational! Especially when they are in a position of power! They will be concerned with STAYING IN POWER above all else! If some people in the community go hungry because they murdered that one guy who mouthed off, it's no skin off their back because they have power and can just take what they need.

    Why is it the case that the only people who ever have weapons are the violent oppressors?

    Every single person is talking about how those who wish to engage in violent oppression (for kicks apparently), is going to be armed to the teeth, and everyone else is going to be a defenseless peasant.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    As for the Somalia people, do you really want to get into a match where we talk about the atrocities perpetrated by states with a monopoly on power against places with no state? Because I can guarantee you the anarchist wins that discussion. Of course, when you look at things like Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia you say that those are states gone bad. Or they aren't the good states. That states don't necessarily have to be like that, they can be better, yet at the same time, you think every anarchic group has to be Somalia. You can't have it both ways.
    The fundamental problem is you can't provide other examples of anarchistic group outside of small enclaves leeching off a state. There aren't durable examples of Anti-Somalia for you to point to. On one side you have a range of states between the current high HDI states like Sweden/Norway etc, and the totalitarian hell holes like Nazi Germany, on the other side you have Somalia and Somalia.

    I'm going to try to respond to everyone at once, instead of piecemeal. It might make it harder, might make it easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the argument that any anarchic society is going to eventually develop into a state. The only people who I've known to intelligently hold anarchic beliefs don't seem to have an answer to that question. I tend to think that while anarchism is nice (I guess), it'll eventually become a state.

    The issue with it not immediately being a state though is that anarchists tend to have a very narrow concept of what a state is. I'm not sure they're entirely off base with it though. So something that you explicitly consent to isn't a state, because in theory you will be literally contractually bound, and your contract will have an opt out clause. So if you don't like the way things are going, you pull out.

    As for the whole "what happens to people who opt out?" That I'm not entirely sure of either. It's never made a lot of sense to me, but I can give a shot at perhaps a plausible answer. No one can actually survive on their own. At some point, you're either going to have to be far far geographically removed from other people, or you're going to have to join up with SOME group of people. Now, you may be able to pick a group that has the rules that you want to live by, unlike the state system of today, where you don't get to pick where you live (otherwise there would be far more citizens of the US).

    I'm confused by how this end state(as in people will end up forming States) can practically differ from today.

    1) People will eventually establish States

    2) These State will define a territory for themselves, for basic LE jurisdiction if nothing else. You can't have someone murder someone, run back to their house and secede, and boom they're off the hook, like the safe zone in a kids game.

    3)Since the amount of space is limited, we will run out of space outside of State control, or at least places that anyone would want. inland Antarctica will probably remain State free.

    4)States will logically wish to regulate who joins or doesn't join their State, and there is no higher authority to disallow it. If the State says no you aren't living here, what can you do about it?


    And look we're right back where we are now, with no guarantee that the States that do end up forming, will be better than the current States they are replacing. We have nearly countless examples of States that are worse than the States we have now. In fact even most current States can trace back through their history and will find that they are currently the best they have ever been as a State. This is certainly true of the US. But we have no Non-states that are improvements.

    You fail at providing a rational for you view on the key point:

    That the alleged freedom gained by doing away with the State will actually materialize. That is it won't be suppressed into the various stable but shitty States we have had in the past.

    Basically in the risk/benefit analysis, you have shown no benefits, beside a nebulous increase in 'freedom'. And you have shown nothing that mitigates the risk. Indeed even your 2 chosen examples of states that were worse than Anarchy, are still risks. There is no mechanism in your non-state world that would work to prevent the rise of Joedalph Hitlan.


    I have already said that I think a powerful argument against the anarchist is the notion that States will eventually form. I think that's a great argument to use against them, and I don't know what their response is going to be.

    The only thing that they have going for them is that any states that do form will at least have the consent of those that they govern, which they don't have now. The concern they have to is to have a just social organization, and the only thing that can render an organization just is if the membership freely consents to the organization. You (and I) may disagree about what makes a particular organization Just (in that we disagree with the anarchist), but that's their motivating concern.

    That's interesting, but it doesn't really seem to change very much. Isn't that pretty much what happened in... America? A bunch of people came together and decided to become an independent country, having the consent of the citizens through their representatives (because due to technological and practical problems, going around and asking everyone individually is not feasible). |At first, they even designed the central authority of the government as too weak and made it impossible to actually run the country. That seems like it would be a common problem with anarchist-created consent states.

    Furthermore, asking everyone now if they want to live under a government doesn't really solve the problem anarchists have anyway. They feel like they were born into a system they don't agree with. If their great-grandparents had all gotten together and agreed that this kind of government was good, would it really make any difference to them?

    I wonder.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    @Loser: Let's say 500 people decide to consent to a town government. The next month one of them gives birth. Did the newborn consent to that government? At what age are they capable of giving or denying consent? Do they have to live until that age under a government they didn't consent to? Is their only choice to consent by staying or dissent by leaving? Or does the government have to be newly agreed-upon by everyone every time there's a birth?

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    As for the Somalia people, do you really want to get into a match where we talk about the atrocities perpetrated by states with a monopoly on power against places with no state? Because I can guarantee you the anarchist wins that discussion. Of course, when you look at things like Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia you say that those are states gone bad. Or they aren't the good states. That states don't necessarily have to be like that, they can be better, yet at the same time, you think every anarchic group has to be Somalia. You can't have it both ways.
    The fundamental problem is you can't provide other examples of anarchistic group outside of small enclaves leeching off a state. There aren't durable examples of Anti-Somalia for you to point to. On one side you have a range of states between the current high HDI states like Sweden/Norway etc, and the totalitarian hell holes like Nazi Germany, on the other side you have Somalia and Somalia.

    I'm going to try to respond to everyone at once, instead of piecemeal. It might make it harder, might make it easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the argument that any anarchic society is going to eventually develop into a state. The only people who I've known to intelligently hold anarchic beliefs don't seem to have an answer to that question. I tend to think that while anarchism is nice (I guess), it'll eventually become a state.

    The issue with it not immediately being a state though is that anarchists tend to have a very narrow concept of what a state is. I'm not sure they're entirely off base with it though. So something that you explicitly consent to isn't a state, because in theory you will be literally contractually bound, and your contract will have an opt out clause. So if you don't like the way things are going, you pull out.

    As for the whole "what happens to people who opt out?" That I'm not entirely sure of either. It's never made a lot of sense to me, but I can give a shot at perhaps a plausible answer. No one can actually survive on their own. At some point, you're either going to have to be far far geographically removed from other people, or you're going to have to join up with SOME group of people. Now, you may be able to pick a group that has the rules that you want to live by, unlike the state system of today, where you don't get to pick where you live (otherwise there would be far more citizens of the US).

    I'm confused by how this end state(as in people will end up forming States) can practically differ from today.

    1) People will eventually establish States

    2) These State will define a territory for themselves, for basic LE jurisdiction if nothing else. You can't have someone murder someone, run back to their house and secede, and boom they're off the hook, like the safe zone in a kids game.

    3)Since the amount of space is limited, we will run out of space outside of State control, or at least places that anyone would want. inland Antarctica will probably remain State free.

    4)States will logically wish to regulate who joins or doesn't join their State, and there is no higher authority to disallow it. If the State says no you aren't living here, what can you do about it?


    And look we're right back where we are now, with no guarantee that the States that do end up forming, will be better than the current States they are replacing. We have nearly countless examples of States that are worse than the States we have now. In fact even most current States can trace back through their history and will find that they are currently the best they have ever been as a State. This is certainly true of the US. But we have no Non-states that are improvements.

    You fail at providing a rational for you view on the key point:

    That the alleged freedom gained by doing away with the State will actually materialize. That is it won't be suppressed into the various stable but shitty States we have had in the past.

    Basically in the risk/benefit analysis, you have shown no benefits, beside a nebulous increase in 'freedom'. And you have shown nothing that mitigates the risk. Indeed even your 2 chosen examples of states that were worse than Anarchy, are still risks. There is no mechanism in your non-state world that would work to prevent the rise of Joedalph Hitlan.


    I have already said that I think a powerful argument against the anarchist is the notion that States will eventually form. I think that's a great argument to use against them, and I don't know what their response is going to be.

    The only thing that they have going for them is that any states that do form will at least have the consent of those that they govern, which they don't have now. The concern they have to is to have a just social organization, and the only thing that can render an organization just is if the membership freely consents to the organization. You (and I) may disagree about what makes a particular organization Just (in that we disagree with the anarchist), but that's their motivating concern.

    For what? A generation...sort of maybe? Once we are at full-of-states status, how does one opt out of one state without having to be allowed into another. Everyone has to be born somewhere, and that somewhere is almost assuredly to be inside a State.

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    I keep trying to imagine these boards being run as the kind of anarchy Ray seems to propose; everyone is a moderator, but any user can remove his own jailing or ban. Then I imagine these boards about six hours later. It made me giggle.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Why is it the case that the only people who ever have weapons are the violent oppressors?

    Every single person is talking about how those who wish to engage in violent oppression (for kicks apparently), is going to be armed to the teeth, and everyone else is going to be a defenseless peasant.

    People engage in violent oppression for varying reasons, power dynamics being part of this. I mentioned gangs in my above post, there certainly exist those in communities overrun by gangs that do not wish this kind of violence to be common, yet they don't band together with their own arsenal to put a stop to the gangsters activity. I think you're underestimating how fearful people are of getting into violent conflict, which is part of why it's somewhat easier for a smaller group in a community to take advantage of this fear. Some people don't want to be equal, they want more, and the media we are surrounded by promotes this in different regards. I find it difficult to believe this kind of instability wouldn't occur in an anarchic situation. It already occurs right now, with organized groups attempting to mitigate these circumstances. The idea that people can just band together with their own weapons to defend each other doesn't seem very appealing in comparison.

    Will power and corruption vanish in an anarchic community? What of the media, that which plays a part in shaping our society, does it simply cease to exist as an influential force?

    Lucid on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    You're the one simplifying it down to "bad" and "good" people, as though that's really the way the world works.

    Also, the populations you're working with are incredibly unrealistic. It's more that there would be 100 "normal" people and 30 "bad" people armed with assault weapons. They could absolutely rule with an iron fist. Or rather, 100,000 "normal" people and 30,000 "bad" people. But, as I said, that's not how the world works. We are not divided into rampaging sociopaths and normal, good citizens who would never hurt a fly. If someone was trying to "take over" by organizing people with weapons, most people in a community would probably support it because there's no government and who knows what kind of people are out there.

    I mean, banditry was a problem thousands of years ago in areas without a strong government, imagine what banditry is like when people have access to modern weapons? It'd be terrifying!

    Also, you don't think that power hungry people are stupid and petty enough to not maximize benefit and minimize risk? What planet are you from? People are not rational! Especially when they are in a position of power! They will be concerned with STAYING IN POWER above all else! If some people in the community go hungry because they murdered that one guy who mouthed off, it's no skin off their back because they have power and can just take what they need.

    Why is it the case that the only people who ever have weapons are the violent oppressors?

    Every single person is talking about how those who wish to engage in violent oppression (for kicks apparently), is going to be armed to the teeth, and everyone else is going to be a defenseless peasant.

    The point he was trying to make by putting "bad" and "good" in quotes is that these people are not "bad" or "good" in the way you're seeing. But rather only look "bad" and "good" within the framework you've described. Bad people do not tend to think they're bad people. Bad people do not tend to become bad people by way of conscious choice.

    What actually happens is that a conflict starts between two people or two groups. Each one frames it as if they are wronged [because they feel they are] and with nothing to stop this conflict it becomes war. At the end of the war one group tends to subjugate the other. Not for kicks, but to prevent retaliation. Now they have more power when there is a conflict with another group.

    In the case of obviously "bad people" its quite simple why they're armed and you're not. The aggressor chooses the time and place of the battle. And they choose asymmetrically in their favor enough times that you can't get the weapons together. Its not that they're armed and you're not, its that they're better armed.

    edit:
    the consent of those that they govern, which they don't have now.

    What? States now[at least modern democracies] have the consent of those they govern.
    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.
    You are away that bandits are things that existed in lawless areas right? And they did so because it was quite easy to maximize benefit and have minimal risk when law was weak right?

    Goumindong on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    What happens when one community, in the middle of Wyoming, decides to ban cars. And then, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, one of the governed decides he or she doesn't like that. So, they... leave? Their options are "stick around, live under oppressive regime," or "wander off into the wilderness to die." What happens when one of the communities decides to ban leaving?

    I'm not sure the people would sign on to a charter that would ban leaving. But I suppose that if everyone agreed to it, they have only themselves to blame. I also presume that a mechanism would be put into place by any reasonable group of people for modifying the rules of the community.
    The problem is that you're expecting a community to stay static. So, a community gets together, and bans leaving. Everyone that doesn't want to abide by that leaves, and then...

    And then those people have kids. And 20 years down the line, the old people in the community still support not letting people leave. And since it was unanimous 20 years ago, there's still a huge majority supporting it today. But the young people want to leave. Where's your increase in freedom, there?

    And you didn't answer my question re: the middle of Wyoming without a car. What about communities that simply make it legal, but physically impossible to leave? What are you going to do about them? The children of the people there are just fucked?

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    I don't really know about the down the line thing. Presumably there is some age where people are able to give consent, and at that age, people will be given the option to consent to the governing system and partake just as their parents did. That's my best guess at what the anarchist is going to say.

    Modern states, not even modern democracies don't have the consent of the governed. Not in any meaningful sense. They certainly don't have explicit consent. Tacit consent isn't really consent (I don't think), and even then, they don't have it in many cases. And hypothetical consent seems to lack any sort of motivating power. I'm not an anarchist, and even I don't function with the belief that any state today actually has the consent of the people it governs. Now, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think that consent is important.

    Thanatos, as for the Wyoming example. Well, to a certain extent, if someone agrees that they wont be allowed to leave, and then changes their mind, but there isn't an opt out clause for their community's contract then it seems that they got themselves in hot water. They agreed to something stupid, and they have to reap the consequences. In addition, if the community bans cars but doesn't keep any around in case people want to leave, then that's on those people for being idiots. I think that's what the anarchist is going to say. You have to let people be stupid and make bad choices. If you don't agree with that, you're not just picking a fight with anarchists anymore, you're picking a fight with a lot of people who value socialist democratic states a whole lot too. So I guess either you have to let people potentially make bad choices that could damage their lives, or you don't let people make those choices, but if you don't you're for a much greater restriction of freedom than we have today.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    I think that the anarchist might also say that no "state" will get large enough to have to deal with a lot of these concerns. There isn't going to be a "state" the size of the US, or even the size of Rhode Island. There will just be a large patchwork of smaller city states that cooperate with one another and then cease doing so as is advantageous.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Neitzsche
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    I think that the anarchist might also say that no "state" will get large enough to have to deal with a lot of these concerns. There isn't going to be a "state" the size of the US, or even the size of Rhode Island. There will just be a large patchwork of smaller city states that cooperate with one another and then cease doing so as is advantageous.

    Given that, historically, we developed States the size of the US and Rhode Island, what will prevent the creation of that which we've already created?

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.
    I don't get how that's different from government
    In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.
    What happens when one community, in the middle of Wyoming, decides to ban cars. And then, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, one of the governed decides he or she doesn't like that. So, they... leave? Their options are "stick around, live under oppressive regime," or "wander off into the wilderness to die." What happens when one of the communities decides to ban leaving?

    I would wonder why the person has to physically leave to withdraw from the community. If the government can only govern by the explicit consent of the governed, all one has to do is withdraw that consent and, in theory, the government has no more control over them. If they are still under the jurisdiction of the government from the time they withdraw their consent to the time when (or if) they physically leave, then the government is ruling someone without his explicit consent (and that government is really no different from any modern democracy).

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    I would wonder why the person has to physically leave to withdraw from the community. If the government can only govern by the explicit consent of the governed, all one has to do is withdraw that consent and, in theory, the government has no more control over them.

    I'm imagining a group of friends out at dinner. One guy says "I consent to help pay the bill."

    The bill arrives.

    The guy says, "I no longer consent to pay the bill." but he remains at the table.

    Seems like leaving the table is a stronger withdrawl of consent than remaining there, but refusing to pay.

  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    I don't really know about the down the line thing. Presumably there is some age where people are able to give consent, and at that age, people will be given the option to consent to the governing system and partake just as their parents did. That's my best guess at what the anarchist is going to say.

    But think through the specifics. I reach the age of adulthood, let's say 18. After my birthday party, I head over to the town baker, who volunteers his time as a dude-who-does-this-consent-thing, and my parents look on with pride as I say, "I do not consent to this system."

    What happens next?

    I can only see a few options here...

    1. The system no longer has the consent of everyone that it governs, so we have to dissolve the system and make a new one that I agree with.
    2. The system no longer has the consent of everyone that it governs, but we decide this is okay (possibly because there's a mechanism for democratic change to the system, and even if I use that mechanism and lose, that counts as consent somehow).
    3. The system no longer has the consent of everyone that it governs, but nobody can stop me from enjoying the town militia's protection from bandits, even though I do not consent to the weekly militia duty that everybody agreed to do.
    4. The system no longer has the consent of everyone that it governs, so I have to leave (and if I won't go, I'll be forcibly ejected).

    Option 1 seems ridiculous and unwieldy, no matter how small the community is.
    Option 2 is how a democratic state functions with the consent of the governed, but you've rejected this as "not really consent".
    Option 3 is the free rider problem, and the only real solution to it is a variation on Option 4 where people refuse to trade with me and I have to leave in order to survive.
    Option 4 is also how a democratic state functions with the consent of the governed (aka, "If you don't like Germany, feel free to move to France") but I think you also rejected that as "not really consent".

    Am I missing something here? Or is your definition of true consent too restrictive for any community to meet for any significant length of time?

    Modern states, not even modern democracies don't have the consent of the governed. Not in any meaningful sense. They certainly don't have explicit consent. Tacit consent isn't really consent (I don't think), and even then, they don't have it in many cases. And hypothetical consent seems to lack any sort of motivating power. I'm not an anarchist, and even I don't function with the belief that any state today actually has the consent of the people it governs. Now, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think that consent is important.
    Thanatos, as for the Wyoming example. Well, to a certain extent, if someone agrees that they wont be allowed to leave, and then changes their mind, but there isn't an opt out clause for their community's contract then it seems that they got themselves in hot water. They agreed to something stupid, and they have to reap the consequences.

    Not to keep harping on this, but what if my parents agreed to something stupid? Should I have to reap the consequences?

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I don't really know about the down the line thing. Presumably there is some age where people are able to give consent, and at that age, people will be given the option to consent to the governing system and partake just as their parents did. That's my best guess at what the anarchist is going to say.

    Modern states, not even modern democracies don't have the consent of the governed. Not in any meaningful sense. They certainly don't have explicit consent. Tacit consent isn't really consent (I don't think), and even then, they don't have it in many cases. And hypothetical consent seems to lack any sort of motivating power. I'm not an anarchist, and even I don't function with the belief that any state today actually has the consent of the people it governs. Now, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think that consent is important.

    So what happens if they don't consent to being governed in the anarchist situation? They leave that area and what? Find another community? Exactly like what happens now. You're given the choice to consent or not and if you don't you're free to leave.

    Modern states have consent of the governed.

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    I would wonder why the person has to physically leave to withdraw from the community. If the government can only govern by the explicit consent of the governed, all one has to do is withdraw that consent and, in theory, the government has no more control over them.

    I'm imagining a group of friends out at dinner. One guy says "I consent to help pay the bill."

    The bill arrives.

    The guy says, "I no longer consent to pay the bill." but he remains at the table.

    Seems like leaving the table is a stronger withdrawl of consent than remaining there, but refusing to pay.

    Yes, but in this situation, the strength of the withdrawl is not relevant. Loser said that the government would require the explicit consent of the governed. Any withdrawl of consent, or even a failure to explicitly give consent should then be enough to place someone beyond the jurisdiction of that government. As Goum just said, modern governments do have consent of the government. It isn't always explicit, though I would say that voluntarily voting in a democratic election shows explicit consent to be governed, but there is implicit consent voluntarily residing within the realm of that government. Requiring a person's explicit consent for them to be subject to a government is the administrative equivalent of Calvinball.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I stumbled across Dethharmonic while in this thread, it's lyrics seemed appropriate:

    I'd rather take a fucking axe
    to my face, blow up this place

    with you all in it, I'd do it in a minute

    If I could write off your murder
    I'd save all of my receipts
    because I'd rather you be dead
    than lose a tiny shred of what I made this fiscal year

    Boring7 on
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • MetroidZoidMetroidZoid Registered User regular
    I keep reading a shit-ton of "I dont know"s from the in-favor side, and out really doesn't make your argument look any better

    9UsHUfk.jpgSteam
    3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    You're the one simplifying it down to "bad" and "good" people, as though that's really the way the world works.

    Also, the populations you're working with are incredibly unrealistic. It's more that there would be 100 "normal" people and 30 "bad" people armed with assault weapons. They could absolutely rule with an iron fist. Or rather, 100,000 "normal" people and 30,000 "bad" people. But, as I said, that's not how the world works. We are not divided into rampaging sociopaths and normal, good citizens who would never hurt a fly. If someone was trying to "take over" by organizing people with weapons, most people in a community would probably support it because there's no government and who knows what kind of people are out there.

    I mean, banditry was a problem thousands of years ago in areas without a strong government, imagine what banditry is like when people have access to modern weapons? It'd be terrifying!

    Also, you don't think that power hungry people are stupid and petty enough to not maximize benefit and minimize risk? What planet are you from? People are not rational! Especially when they are in a position of power! They will be concerned with STAYING IN POWER above all else! If some people in the community go hungry because they murdered that one guy who mouthed off, it's no skin off their back because they have power and can just take what they need.

    Why is it the case that the only people who ever have weapons are the violent oppressors?

    Every single person is talking about how those who wish to engage in violent oppression (for kicks apparently), is going to be armed to the teeth, and everyone else is going to be a defenseless peasant.
    Well, think about the alternative - there is an organized armed unit responsible for enforcing social norms. Who decides which norms are enforced, and when doing so requires the use of force? Who equips, organizes, feeds, and orders this force? Who restrains it? Congratulations, you've just described a government. That's the real problem here - as someone pointed out a while ago, you either have a functioning government, a happy wonderful fairy land with unlimited resources, or have to rely on opposing armed groups to resolve conflict. Because you will always, always end up with conflict.

    Think about the terrible 'bad guy' conversation. let's assume you have your rayofash Anarchistic Utopia, with 10 small 100 person villages spread out over a few hundred square miles - close enough to trade a big up and down with the neighbors, but big enough there are plenty of resources and little inter-village conflict. 10% of these guys decide fuck it, we're going to be raiders - maybe they're just 'bad', maybe their skillset is better suited to violent theft than growing vegetables, whatever. Either way, they band together and can now bring 100 armed thugs to your door, greater than the population of your whole fucking 90 person village, with a proposition: you give them everything they want, leaving just enough for you to survive on and gater more shit for them to steal, or they kill anyone who resists via torture.

    After a while, your 10 villages get their elders or other representatives together, and they decide 'as a community' that this fucking sucks, so each village representative agrees and kicks in 20 people and scrapes together the resources to arm them up. They're ougtunned and its a tough battle, but hooray they kill the bandits in the end! Yay! Up to this point, i think rayofash is with me. My question is pretty simple: why on earth would this system then disband? It provides for common security and a means of resolving what inter-village conflict does happen without resorting to warfare as populations grow - it serves a useful purpose, and the cost is lower than the cost of not having it (the village has to pay some of its collective resources, but not everything but the minimum necessary to keep them alive, and as a bonus gains a place for the kind of people who formed the bandits in the first place a chance to use their talent for violence to make a living while providing a service to the community instead of terrorizing it). This is basically why you have to dig so damned hard to find any example of anarchistic societies period; there's a natural incentive to form a government to resolve conflict, because once the groups involved are bigger than family units, collectively the cost of supporting a functional government is lower than the cost of going without one.

    If I'm understanding rayofash correctly his big problem is that four generations down the line, if some kid decides he just doesn't WANT to agree to be governed because it just takes away his freedom and he has to pay taxes, and he was never explicitly asked to help decide the form of the government so he's shit out of luck. And again, the answer is pretty simple - if he decides to appeal to the people and try to persuade them to scrap their government or revoke their consent and have a revolution....and they laugh in his damn face because they feel they're getting more in return from their government than they're giving up? Maybe instead of caling them sheeple he should wonder if his own cost benefit analysis is simply wrong.

    JihadJesus on
    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    I stumbled across Dethharmonic while in this thread, it's lyrics seemed appropriate:

    I'd rather take a fucking axe
    to my face, blow up this place

    with you all in it, I'd do it in a minute

    If I could write off your murder
    I'd save all of my receipts
    because I'd rather you be dead
    than lose a tiny shred of what I made this fiscal year

    It's pretty much a given that Dethklok are a bunch of libertarians.

    Except for their own private enclave of Mordhaus (Mordhouse?), which they control, and profit from, the way North Korea controls their half of the DMZ. Not the whole country, mind you, that's way more open than that.

    It's a pretty typical arrangement taken to the extreme, heh.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    You're the one simplifying it down to "bad" and "good" people, as though that's really the way the world works.

    Also, the populations you're working with are incredibly unrealistic. It's more that there would be 100 "normal" people and 30 "bad" people armed with assault weapons. They could absolutely rule with an iron fist. Or rather, 100,000 "normal" people and 30,000 "bad" people. But, as I said, that's not how the world works. We are not divided into rampaging sociopaths and normal, good citizens who would never hurt a fly. If someone was trying to "take over" by organizing people with weapons, most people in a community would probably support it because there's no government and who knows what kind of people are out there.

    I mean, banditry was a problem thousands of years ago in areas without a strong government, imagine what banditry is like when people have access to modern weapons? It'd be terrifying!

    Also, you don't think that power hungry people are stupid and petty enough to not maximize benefit and minimize risk? What planet are you from? People are not rational! Especially when they are in a position of power! They will be concerned with STAYING IN POWER above all else! If some people in the community go hungry because they murdered that one guy who mouthed off, it's no skin off their back because they have power and can just take what they need.

    Why is it the case that the only people who ever have weapons are the violent oppressors?

    Every single person is talking about how those who wish to engage in violent oppression (for kicks apparently), is going to be armed to the teeth, and everyone else is going to be a defenseless peasant.

    Because in a situation where there are no enforceable consequences, then anyone who has a weapon is by definition "a violent oppressor" (ie: a threat) in everyone's eyes unless they're definitely known not to be.

  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    There are quite a few self-identifying anarchists in my circle of friends, and though I don't like to put labels on myself and have enough qualms with the anarchist scene to avoid that label in particular, I do share a few of their values and beliefs.

    I think people here are operating under the misconception that "anarchism" is an end-state. Obviously, anarchism is a broad theoretical framework with a lot of different approaches and ideas, but most of the anarchists I know don't perceive anarchism the way you might perceive, say, capitalism or communism. "Anarchy" is not the goal, not a destination to arrive at. It is not a utopian society to strive for. Anarchism is a set of tactics, premises, and philosophies, starting with the idea that non-consensual authority is illegitimate.

    For example, OWS is an anarchist project. Obviously, not everyone involved in OWS identifies as an anarchist, but the principles upon which the movement is organized- horizontal organization, mutual aid, consent, direct action, rejection of any co-optation by existing organizations- are all anarchist principles.

    I know very few anarchists (maybe some of the primitivists) who believe that nationwide dissolution into what most people would consider "anarchy" to be feasible or even desirable. So any discussion revolving around questions like "well, in an anarchist society, what's to stop people from killing and robbing each other" is missing the point a bit, since such a society is not actually what most anarchists are interested in.

    i.e. Anarchism is like existentialism or liberalism: a philosophy/way of life, not a blueprint for society

    flamebroiledchicken on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    V1m wrote: »
    I mean jesus christ it's only been 150 years or so since slavery was abolished in the US. And it still exists in east Africa. It's not like we're extrapolating or guessing here. It's like we're saying the experiment has been done, and it seems that yes, people* do get off on oppressing their fellow humans for their own benefit, and they are "stupid enough" to do so.

    *Or a sufficient fraction of them, at least. And it doesn't take all that many before game theory kicks in and the average dude in the group would rather help out with the oppressing than be oppressed

    Most people just want to keep their heads down and go about there business. If 10% of the population is extremely dedicated towards an end, say, banning contraception, they can get their way unless there's an opposing element that's just as dedicated to stopping them. The other 80% of people will do their best to avoid the conflict entirely until it starts actually hurting them.

    This is just a rough example but look at some of the more crazed parts of modern history, like the nazis, after removing the committed parties who opposed them, the general public just went with the flow and followed.
    Paladin wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

    Three things.

    How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

    Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

    If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

    Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

    The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

    Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

    I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

    I don't get how that's different from government

    In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.

    You can leave your community today. The US government won't stop you from leaving.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Boring7 wrote: »
    I stumbled across Dethharmonic while in this thread, it's lyrics seemed appropriate:

    I'd rather take a fucking axe
    to my face, blow up this place

    with you all in it, I'd do it in a minute

    If I could write off your murder
    I'd save all of my receipts
    because I'd rather you be dead
    than lose a tiny shred of what I made this fiscal year

    It's pretty much a given that Dethklok are a bunch of libertarians.

    Except for their own private enclave of Mordhaus (Mordhouse?), which they control, and profit from, the way North Korea controls their half of the DMZ. Not the whole country, mind you, that's way more open than that.

    It's a pretty typical arrangement taken to the extreme, heh.

    Hate hate hate hate

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    I don't really know about the down the line thing. Presumably there is some age where people are able to give consent, and at that age, people will be given the option to consent to the governing system and partake just as their parents did. That's my best guess at what the anarchist is going to say.

    Modern states, not even modern democracies don't have the consent of the governed. Not in any meaningful sense. They certainly don't have explicit consent. Tacit consent isn't really consent (I don't think), and even then, they don't have it in many cases. And hypothetical consent seems to lack any sort of motivating power. I'm not an anarchist, and even I don't function with the belief that any state today actually has the consent of the people it governs. Now, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think that consent is important.

    Thanatos, as for the Wyoming example. Well, to a certain extent, if someone agrees that they wont be allowed to leave, and then changes their mind, but there isn't an opt out clause for their community's contract then it seems that they got themselves in hot water. They agreed to something stupid, and they have to reap the consequences. In addition, if the community bans cars but doesn't keep any around in case people want to leave, then that's on those people for being idiots. I think that's what the anarchist is going to say. You have to let people be stupid and make bad choices. If you don't agree with that, you're not just picking a fight with anarchists anymore, you're picking a fight with a lot of people who value socialist democratic states a whole lot too. So I guess either you have to let people potentially make bad choices that could damage their lives, or you don't let people make those choices, but if you don't you're for a much greater restriction of freedom than we have today.
    Again, we're not talking about the people who voted to ban cars; we're talking about their children and grandchildren, who just had the misfortune to be born there.

    What about them? It's just "fuck you, should have chosen to be born somewhere better?"

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    The question that Thanatos keeps putting up, about a small community deciding to do this, but their children wanting something different... It reminds me of M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village". In an almost strange way.

    Complete with the "Other" that was used to keep the village under control.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    There are quite a few self-identifying anarchists in my circle of friends, and though I don't like to put labels on myself and have enough qualms with the anarchist scene to avoid that label in particular, I do share a few of their values and beliefs.

    I think people here are operating under the misconception that "anarchism" is an end-state. Obviously, anarchism is a broad theoretical framework with a lot of different approaches and ideas, but most of the anarchists I know don't perceive anarchism the way you might perceive, say, capitalism or communism. "Anarchy" is not the goal, not a destination to arrive at. It is not a utopian society to strive for. Anarchism is a set of tactics, premises, and philosophies, starting with the idea that non-consensual authority is illegitimate.

    For example, OWS is an anarchist project. Obviously, not everyone involved in OWS identifies as an anarchist, but the principles upon which the movement is organized- horizontal organization, mutual aid, consent, direct action, rejection of any co-optation by existing organizations- are all anarchist principles.

    I know very few anarchists (maybe some of the primitivists) who believe that nationwide dissolution into what most people would consider "anarchy" to be feasible or even desirable. So any discussion revolving around questions like "well, in an anarchist society, what's to stop people from killing and robbing each other" is missing the point a bit, since such a society is not actually what most anarchists are interested in.

    i.e. Anarchism is like existentialism or liberalism: a philosophy/way of life, not a blueprint for society

    I'm actually fine with this sort of answer. If 'anarchist principles' result in the influence of society in general then you can say that OWS was the greatest anarchist movement since the hippies put flowers in guns at Kent State. The mistake they made was not co-opting existing organizations themselves at large. In New Haven the OWS' biggest accomplishment was to get a bunch of people marching, then get a judge to say that they could stay in the Green. The Tea Party (completely different obviously) got people into Congress ostensibly making Tea-Party things happen, but OWS in its various forms had the entire nation entranced, and most of it ended up being 'you can't kick us out of here, we're occupying'. That can't be enough.

    I'm not down with breaking windows or blowing shit up. Most people aren't. If they want a voice in how things end up, the anarchists have to take off the masks and put down the cocktails and start putting people in a position to make some sort of meaningful difference, even if it is a nay vote.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    @flamebroiledchicken, I don't think anyone here is saying "all anarchist principles suck" or "all anarchists want an anarchist society", but that's what the starter of this thread was trying to promote.
    OWS has been very successful, but it also shows the weakness of anarchist principles: they can't control who is or isn't a voice for OWS, and they can't exclude people who act in a way contrary to the purpose of OWS. If your local OWS chapter opposes violence and you have enough people to shun the one guy throwing rocks, fabulous; but if the rock-thrower has enough like-minded friends, then rock-throwing becomes how that OWS operates.

    From anarchist friends I've had I understand that the main principle of anarchist groups is consensus - please correct me if this is wrong, but obviously in a group with no official hierarchy or authority, you have to get everyone to agree or at least abstain, you can't simply say "we voted and the rest of you have to go along with it". If you've ever done agreement by consensus this should make you run for an adult beverage.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    23 years of human experience has taught me that given no restraints everyone will behave exactly like I think they should.
    Spoiler:

    sig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.