3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- GW150914 8y ago
  This is the core disconnect between you, and everyone you’re talking to here. 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. That’s... sort of the “religious” view. The practical view is that a system for humans which humans can’t use, is a flawed system. Your stance is that the system is perfect, humans are flawed. Well sure, but the flawed and human nature of people is the basis for anything that pretends to be a government or way life. Talking to you about this is sort of like arguing with someone who thinks that people are ignorant savages who don’t understand how inefficient walking is, when we should just flap our arms and fly. When it’s pointed out that humans simply can’t do that, they just shrug and say that’s a problem with our wings, flying is still the way to go and walking is for suckers. People don’t want governments because we think they’re perfect, we don’t reject anarchy because we think it doesn’t have appealing elements. What we’re doing is being realistic rather than engaging in ideological masturbation. You’ll usually find that only similarly ideologically committed people have the patience for that crap.
- bena 8y ago
  I never said thugs. That was someone else. I said assholes. Plus, you have defined "thug" as "people who cannot produce anything themselves" and are holding everyone to that definition even though no one else has agreed that that is an acceptable definition of thug. Which is kind of funny considering the root of the word thug traces its roots to an order of thieves and assassins in India. So stop focusing on the word "thug", it's a pointless diversion and doesn't really answer the question: What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have? Saying "It won't happen because thugs don't join gangs and we'll have all the guns because only good people make shit" is Platonic ideal of naivety.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > I never said thugs. I never said you did. The post of mine that you were responding to here was not in response to you; it was in response to GW150914. > What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have? What do you do in this case in our current society? If you think the government is always protecting you from this, you need to think again.

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.

GW150914 8y ago
This is the core disconnect between you, and everyone you’re talking to here. 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. That’s... sort of the “religious” view. The practical view is that a system for humans which humans can’t use, is a flawed system. Your stance is that the system is perfect, humans are flawed. Well sure, but the flawed and human nature of people is the basis for anything that pretends to be a government or way life. Talking to you about this is sort of like arguing with someone who thinks that people are ignorant savages who don’t understand how inefficient walking is, when we should just flap our arms and fly. When it’s pointed out that humans simply can’t do that, they just shrug and say that’s a problem with our wings, flying is still the way to go and walking is for suckers. People don’t want governments because we think they’re perfect, we don’t reject anarchy because we think it doesn’t have appealing elements. What we’re doing is being realistic rather than engaging in ideological masturbation. You’ll usually find that only similarly ideologically committed people have the patience for that crap.
bena 8y ago
I never said thugs. That was someone else. I said assholes. Plus, you have defined "thug" as "people who cannot produce anything themselves" and are holding everyone to that definition even though no one else has agreed that that is an acceptable definition of thug. Which is kind of funny considering the root of the word thug traces its roots to an order of thieves and assassins in India. So stop focusing on the word "thug", it's a pointless diversion and doesn't really answer the question: What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have? Saying "It won't happen because thugs don't join gangs and we'll have all the guns because only good people make shit" is Platonic ideal of naivety.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > I never said thugs. I never said you did. The post of mine that you were responding to here was not in response to you; it was in response to GW150914. > What do you do when a stronger, organized force decides that it wants what you have? What do you do in this case in our current society? If you think the government is always protecting you from this, you need to think again.