5 ms·

Ah, yes. A voice of reason. It gets so tiresome when some people can't understand that the use of force is unavoidable. People who frequent the same circles whe

by tormeh 11y ago

Ah, yes. A voice of reason. It gets so tiresome when some people can't understand that the use of force is unavoidable. People who frequent the same circles where game theory is routinely discussed don't seem to grasp violence being a necessary consequence of its benefits to the victor. If they had understood that, then they would immediately have understood that a democratic government is a pretty good overlord to have, and that having some sort of overlord is mandatory. While it is true that states and mafia are similar in some respects, that is a truth of dubious interest and importance. I can only conclude that the people continuing to compare mafia and democratic governments are ideologically handicapped. Or maybe it's a steady procession of innocents believing the world has never considered their insight. Probably a bit of both.

grandalf 11y ago
My point was intended to look at the relationship between force and propaganda. I think the effective use of propaganda is a function of the size and power of an organization. Thus, organizations that achieve greater power are more effective at creating an image of legitimacy. If a government utilizes extensive propaganda against its citizens, can it really be called a democratic government? I'd argue that it cannot.
- adaml_623 11y ago
  Your points are interesting but I think that saying government=organisation=mafia ignores the larger differences. Large organisations might have better propaganda but the nature of the organisation might be a bigger factor in the equation.
rqebmm 11y ago
Not to mention those who advocate for free-market capitalism as a panacea, but don't acknowledge that violence is logical conclusion of the exploitation of a market without any regulation. That or they believe the Roman model of private armies vying for control of a state was a great idea.
- nickff 11y ago
  This is a completely incorrect characterisation of the current state of free-market anarchist thinking. Please see Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" for an actual discussion of the moral/ethical problems with governments, and a proposal for free-market anarchy.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...
  - rqebmm 11y ago
    Can you provide a link to a good overview of his arguments? I'm interested but the wikipedia page is all about critical reception.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Here is a link to the first bit of the book.[1] His arguments are tough to sum up, becasue he responds to each justification for the authority of the state, and describes many details. The second link is something approaching a summary.[2] [1] http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf [2] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/proble...
      - rqebmm 11y ago
        >In the second half of The Problem of Political Authority, I consider how an anarchist society might work, specifically, an “anarcho-capitalist” society. In this society, the services now provided by governmental police would instead be provided by competing protection agencies, hired either by individuals or by associations of property owners. Protection agencies, knowing that violence is the most expensive way of resolving disputes, would require their customers to seek peaceful resolutions of any disputes with other individuals. Agencies would decline to protect those who either willfully initiated conflicts with others or refused to seek peaceful resolutions; any agencies that acted otherwise would find themselves unable to compete in the marketplace due to the soaring costs created by their troublesome clients. The services presently provided by government courts would instead be provided by private arbitrators, hired by individuals who had disputes with one another. Laws, rather than being made by a legislature, would be made by the arbitrators So we'll have "protection agencies" who have military arms and logistics arms to manage the necessary affairs of the agency. Those agencies will somehow provide equipment to their military, or else they'll be inferior to the other agencies, meaning they will not be giving protection free of charge, instead they will run capitalist markets within their domain and somehow extract a profit (either by taxing transactions, or charging individuals). How exactly is that different from the current nation-state paradigm?
tammer 11y ago
The idea that centralized violence is necessary for a "functioning" society is a common misconception. It's rarely discussed in political circles but we've got to remember that the state as we understand it is a technology, not some divinely ordered system. And as HNers should well know, something new can always come along and obsolete the old. There are a number[1] of anthropological investigations into this (outside the scope of anarchist theory to which this tenant is integral) although they're fairly diffuse. This is similar to the idea that a a voting majority is the only reasonable way to make egalitarian decisions. As anarchist[2] and non-heirarchical organizations (whether we're talking Kobanê or Valve) are illustrating, governing by consensus is a rarely discussed but viable alternative. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20chiefs https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20ch... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
- lifeformed 11y ago
  Are there any proposed systems in which a billion person society can function without centralized violence?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    There are many such proposed systems. A better question is if there are any such proposed systems that aren't silly and predicated an a refusal to understand human nature. I know a number of communists and anarchists who seem to believe they can just wish away aspects of primate psychology.
- PJDK 11y ago
  I can believe a small group can exist as a collective without violence for a while (maybe a long while), but how can any such group deal with a member that decides to use violence to get their way? Either that person becomes leader, the group organises to stop them with violence or the group dissolves. And I don't think even such a temporary arrangement can scale much above Dunbar's number.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by tormeh 11y ago

grandalf 11y ago

My point was intended to look at the relationship between force and propaganda. I think the effective use of propaganda is a function of the size and power of an organization. Thus, organizations that achieve greater power are more effective at creating an image of legitimacy. If a government utilizes extensive propaganda against its citizens, can it really be called a democratic government? I'd argue that it cannot.

adaml_623 11y ago
Your points are interesting but I think that saying government=organisation=mafia ignores the larger differences. Large organisations might have better propaganda but the nature of the organisation might be a bigger factor in the equation.

rqebmm 11y ago

Not to mention those who advocate for free-market capitalism as a panacea, but don't acknowledge that violence is logical conclusion of the exploitation of a market without any regulation. That or they believe the Roman model of private armies vying for control of a state was a great idea.

nickff 11y ago
This is a completely incorrect characterisation of the current state of free-market anarchist thinking. Please see Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" for an actual discussion of the moral/ethical problems with governments, and a proposal for free-market anarchy.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...
- rqebmm 11y ago
  Can you provide a link to a good overview of his arguments? I'm interested but the wikipedia page is all about critical reception.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Here is a link to the first bit of the book.[1] His arguments are tough to sum up, becasue he responds to each justification for the authority of the state, and describes many details. The second link is something approaching a summary.[2] [1] http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf [2] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/problem-authority http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/04/michael-huemer/proble...
    - rqebmm 11y ago
      >In the second half of The Problem of Political Authority, I consider how an anarchist society might work, specifically, an “anarcho-capitalist” society. In this society, the services now provided by governmental police would instead be provided by competing protection agencies, hired either by individuals or by associations of property owners. Protection agencies, knowing that violence is the most expensive way of resolving disputes, would require their customers to seek peaceful resolutions of any disputes with other individuals. Agencies would decline to protect those who either willfully initiated conflicts with others or refused to seek peaceful resolutions; any agencies that acted otherwise would find themselves unable to compete in the marketplace due to the soaring costs created by their troublesome clients. The services presently provided by government courts would instead be provided by private arbitrators, hired by individuals who had disputes with one another. Laws, rather than being made by a legislature, would be made by the arbitrators So we'll have "protection agencies" who have military arms and logistics arms to manage the necessary affairs of the agency. Those agencies will somehow provide equipment to their military, or else they'll be inferior to the other agencies, meaning they will not be giving protection free of charge, instead they will run capitalist markets within their domain and somehow extract a profit (either by taxing transactions, or charging individuals). How exactly is that different from the current nation-state paradigm?

tammer 11y ago

The idea that centralized violence is necessary for a "functioning" society is a common misconception. It's rarely discussed in political circles but we've got to remember that the state as we understand it is a technology, not some divinely ordered system. And as HNers should well know, something new can always come along and obsolete the old. There are a number[1] of anthropological investigations into this (outside the scope of anarchist theory to which this tenant is integral) although they're fairly diffuse. This is similar to the idea that a a voting majority is the only reasonable way to make egalitarian decisions. As anarchist[2] and non-heirarchical organizations (whether we're talking Kobanê or Valve) are illustrating, governing by consensus is a rarely discussed but viable alternative. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20chiefs https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=society%20without%20ch... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

lifeformed 11y ago
Are there any proposed systems in which a billion person society can function without centralized violence?
- Kalium 11y ago
  There are many such proposed systems. A better question is if there are any such proposed systems that aren't silly and predicated an a refusal to understand human nature. I know a number of communists and anarchists who seem to believe they can just wish away aspects of primate psychology.
PJDK 11y ago
I can believe a small group can exist as a collective without violence for a while (maybe a long while), but how can any such group deal with a member that decides to use violence to get their way? Either that person becomes leader, the group organises to stop them with violence or the group dissolves. And I don't think even such a temporary arrangement can scale much above Dunbar's number.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]