5 ms·

You have a very naive view of other people. You're the one basically imagining our society but with government and "governmental law enforcement" suddenly remo

by bena 8y ago

You have a very naive view of other people. You're the one basically imagining our society but with government and "governmental law enforcement" suddenly removed. Everyone will just behave because we don't have police, but for some reason we all have laws we all agree on. But you coincidentally don't remove "laws", because those are important to keep. But we all enforce the laws because of reasons... Assuming your opponents are weaker, less intelligent, less organized, or less determined is how you end up with your back against the wall then the time comes. It doesn't take a group of "thugs", just a group of people with the means and motive to do it. And with nothing stopping them, they will. Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. At some point, we agree to follow certain rules in order to ensure others also follow those rules. It's funny, the people who most clamor for anarchy would be the ones most disadvantaged by it. And yes, certain communes "work", but they work by extension of being a part of a larger entity that does have a government. And you can talk all you want about "past societies", but unless you skipped half the words being said, those past societies are necessary stepping stones to what we get today. Those Icelandic villages are small-scale governments. The minute someone isn't allowed to do something, you've lost anarchy, you're building to modern government. Absolute freedom is absolute. There is no "anarchy but don't kill anyone".

pdonis 8y ago
> You're the one basically imagining our society but with government and "governmental law enforcement" suddenly removed. I don't know where you're getting that from. I have not only not imagined any such thing, I have explicitly said several times in this overall thread that that's not the way to imagine a functioning anarchy. If your argument is that "we can't get there from here", I have already agreed, in response to another poster downthread (PeterisP), that this is a valid point. But that is not a criticism of anarchy; it's a criticism of us humans, who have painted ourselves into this corner where we can't trust governments to uphold our rights but can't get rid of them either.
pdonis 8y ago
> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: > Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. Government is supposed to be this, yes. But that's not how it actually works out in practice.
- GW150914 8y ago
  > You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: I don’t think he does, he’s just not sold on your alternative based on childlike assumptions such as They work together at being thugs (though even that tends to be limited). They don't work together in productive endeavors, which is what I said. You keep alluding to your perfect vision of anarchy, and when people point out how impossible it is in the world we already live in you either pivot to “government is bad,” or “that’s not what I mean by anarchy.” So maybe it’s time you lay out in detail how you get from Earth 2018 to pdonis’ anarchy at some point in the future. Remember to avoid magic, changing human nature, and all of the criticisms levied so far. You don’t get to handwave away any parts, you don’t get to assume things like worldwide cooperation or “peace already broke out in the Middle East” and you have to account for all of the world’s tech, armaments, etc. Convince us.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > I don’t think he does You don't think "Government is the eoforcement of the social contract on a large scale" is a naïve view of government? > your alternative based on childlike assumptions So you think thugs actually do work together in productive endeavors? Isn't not doing that the definition of a "thug"? Thugs might make use of things that others have already produced, but they don't produce anything themselves; if they do, we don't call them thugs. > maybe it’s time you lay out in detail how you get from Earth 2018 to pdonis’ anarchy at some point in the future I have already said, in response to several other posters in this overall thread, that it's quite possible that we can't get there from here. But, as I said to those posters, that's a problem with us, not with anarchy. > Convince us. I can't convince you if you refuse to even try to imagine what an actual functioning anarchy--a society with no government, no entity with a monopoly on the use of force or the right to make rules that everyone must follow whether they want to or not, but which still is populated by citizens who understand the benefits of social cooperation and are willing to regulate their own behavior to achieve those benefits--would be like. I agree this task of imagination is a very hard one, because all of us have grown up in a society which has evolved for centuries, if not millennia, under the assumption that a society has to have a government, and in which over time governments accrete more and more functions and people come to think of them as having to be done by governments, even if they could be done better by private entities. That's why I have several times referenced David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom, which is a serious attempt to undertake this task of imagination in some detail. It's not something that can be done within the scope of a HN comment.
pdonis 8y ago
> Those Icelandic villages are small-scale governments. No, they aren't. They are arrangements of mutual cooperation that are voluntary on the part of all parties. Nobody has the authority to force anyone else to participate. Nobody has the authority to make laws that everyone must obey on pain of punishment. Nobody has the authority to "not allow" someone else to do something.

by bena 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> You're the one basically imagining our society but with government and "governmental law enforcement" suddenly removed. I don't know where you're getting that from. I have not only not imagined any such thing, I have explicitly said several times in this overall thread that that's not the way to imagine a functioning anarchy. If your argument is that "we can't get there from here", I have already agreed, in response to another poster downthread (PeterisP), that this is a valid point. But that is not a criticism of anarchy; it's a criticism of us humans, who have painted ourselves into this corner where we can't trust governments to uphold our rights but can't get rid of them either.

pdonis 8y ago

> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: > Government is the enforcement of the social contract on a large scale. Government is supposed to be this, yes. But that's not how it actually works out in practice.

GW150914 8y ago
> You have a very naive view of other people. You have a very naïve view of government: I don’t think he does, he’s just not sold on your alternative based on childlike assumptions such as They work together at being thugs (though even that tends to be limited). They don't work together in productive endeavors, which is what I said. You keep alluding to your perfect vision of anarchy, and when people point out how impossible it is in the world we already live in you either pivot to “government is bad,” or “that’s not what I mean by anarchy.” So maybe it’s time you lay out in detail how you get from Earth 2018 to pdonis’ anarchy at some point in the future. Remember to avoid magic, changing human nature, and all of the criticisms levied so far. You don’t get to handwave away any parts, you don’t get to assume things like worldwide cooperation or “peace already broke out in the Middle East” and you have to account for all of the world’s tech, armaments, etc. Convince us.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > I don’t think he does You don't think "Government is the eoforcement of the social contract on a large scale" is a naïve view of government? > your alternative based on childlike assumptions So you think thugs actually do work together in productive endeavors? Isn't not doing that the definition of a "thug"? Thugs might make use of things that others have already produced, but they don't produce anything themselves; if they do, we don't call them thugs. > maybe it’s time you lay out in detail how you get from Earth 2018 to pdonis’ anarchy at some point in the future I have already said, in response to several other posters in this overall thread, that it's quite possible that we can't get there from here. But, as I said to those posters, that's a problem with us, not with anarchy. > Convince us. I can't convince you if you refuse to even try to imagine what an actual functioning anarchy--a society with no government, no entity with a monopoly on the use of force or the right to make rules that everyone must follow whether they want to or not, but which still is populated by citizens who understand the benefits of social cooperation and are willing to regulate their own behavior to achieve those benefits--would be like. I agree this task of imagination is a very hard one, because all of us have grown up in a society which has evolved for centuries, if not millennia, under the assumption that a society has to have a government, and in which over time governments accrete more and more functions and people come to think of them as having to be done by governments, even if they could be done better by private entities. That's why I have several times referenced David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom, which is a serious attempt to undertake this task of imagination in some detail. It's not something that can be done within the scope of a HN comment.

pdonis 8y ago

> Those Icelandic villages are small-scale governments. No, they aren't. They are arrangements of mutual cooperation that are voluntary on the part of all parties. Nobody has the authority to force anyone else to participate. Nobody has the authority to make laws that everyone must obey on pain of punishment. Nobody has the authority to "not allow" someone else to do something.