5 ms·

Just because a government can possibly turn ugly, it doesn't mean that no government is better. The argument is akin to "beef can give you food poisoning, so w

by lukevdp 16y ago

Just because a government can possibly turn ugly, it doesn't mean that no government is better. The argument is akin to "beef can give you food poisoning, so we should eradicate all cows". Everyone hates paying taxes... But anarchy? Come on. The fabric of the society that has advanced so far in the last 300 years is built on, at the very least, property rights and stability

face 16y ago
I do not think he is arguing against property rights. I think that forms of anarchy allow for property rights and other individual liberties.
- iskander 16y ago
  Can you explain more? How can property rights and individual liberties be secured without the police?
- astine 16y ago
  In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out. Umm, the strong will out even with govt. In fact, govt will enforce the will of the strong. Consider how eminent domain works in the US. One of the seminal cases in the US involved GM wanting to build a plant where a bunch of poor people lived. The local govt took the land under eminent domain and basically gave it to GM. (It's the "poletown" case if you're looking for cites.) Yes, you get to vote, but as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.
    - astine 16y ago
      At least that sheep has a vote. I dislike eminent domain abuse as much as anyone but there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government. Those aren't the only possibilities. (And relatively incorrupt is optimistic. It isn't consistently corrupt.) Consider the sudan (no functioning govt) with zimbabwe (malevolent govt). It's not obvious that the sudan is worse. Also, remember that the effective genocides have had govt backing.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  ESR might not argue against property rights, because I'd bet he's an "anarcho"-capitalist. All other forms of anarchism don't believe in property, but ancaps do. This is why you'll often (well, in anarchist discussions, anyway) hear that "ancaps aren't anarchists."
- lukevdp 16y ago
  I thought that as soon as you start introducing rights, you're talking about a libertarian
naner 16y ago
The argument is akin to "beef can give you food poisoning, so we should eradicate all cows". Or "beef can give you food poisoning, we shouldn't eat beef". Actually, it sounds like he is saying "beef always eventually leads to poisoning" so I don't know if your analogy holds up at all. Anarchy doesn't mean no authority, it just means the least amount of justifiable authority. People always associate Anarchy with chaos and lawlessness, which is not correct. We will never see an anarchy society in our lifetime, though. This is more an exercise in idealism. e.g. the only type of political system that is ethically justifiable is anarchy.
steveklabnik 16y ago
> The fabric of the society that has advanced so far in the last 300 years is built on, at the very least, property rights and stability And an anarchist would suggest that that's exactly why the problems that we have have manifested today. Anarchism is something that's hard to have an actual discussion on. The word has too much baggage. Anarchists are viewed as utopians, there's been a lot of inter-faction arguing, and politics are frankly boring. The modern anarchist movement hasn't been able to connect their message to anything that's relevant. As much as I dislike CrimeThinc, they make a really good points in "Your Politics are Boring as Fuck"[1]. Even if you don't think that ridding the world of rulers is a good thing, fundamentally, anarchism's message of truly caring for people still holds value. Groups like Food Not Bombs, Homes not Jails, and many cooperative organizations do a lot of good in the world. You might be surprised to find that even the Black Bloc isn't just a bunch of kids breaking things, though this is endlessly debated every time the G20 comes to town. 1: http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php
- iskander 16y ago
  >The modern anarchist movement hasn't been able to connect their message to anything that's relevant What is the message? I usually just hear unfocused discontent. Saying "Grrr evil government" makes for a fun sense of solidarity and good conversation as you try to screw that cute girl from your collective. It doesn't, however, lead many people to thinking up scalable alternatives to government. It seems to me that "Anarchism is something that's hard to have an actual discussion on" because most anarchists are either focused on (1) a perpetual oppositional stance to government (fun for them, but what's there to discuss?) or (2) creating or helping a small community. The second category is laudible but still offers almost nothing in the way of big-picture political solutions.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    If I had to sum up what I consider to be the message of anarchism, (and I've only been comfortable calling myself one fairly recently, though I've been studying it for over a year) it would be "The best way to build a society is by empowering individuals through understanding, cooperation, and support." > I usually just hear unfocused discontent. Yeah, this is the exact problem I'm talking about. It's absolutely true, there's a lot of that going around. A large part of the 'why' is that if you're an anarchist, you probably care about politics a lot. And you feel like you have answers. And then you see things like the absolute robbery of the American people via the bank bailout, and the most you see... is some harsh words. Nobody's even upset. A single dollar lost is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. It's easy to become angry when you have very strong feelings, feel that you have answers, and then are totally ignored by most people, while you watch them make the exact mistakes you were trying to warn them about. Not that any of that is an excuse; it's exactly why anarchism has continued to be marginalized. It's something that we'll have to collectively get over in order to move forward, and frankly, I'm not sure if it'll happen any time soon. > thinking up scalable alternatives to government. I think that one of the conclusion that you come to if you follow the anarchist line of thinking is that there is no _scalable_ alternative to government. Once you start building huge communities, the human element of humans is lost. To use the same saying twice in one post, one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic; humans simply can't care for large numbers of other humans. Their humanity disappears. So the only way to move forward is to build a decentralized network of smaller communities, rather than yet bigger ones. The British empire fell because it was growing too large; the American one is following suit. I don't think, for example, nationalized health care can possibly work at the levels of population that America currently has. We're not only significantly larger, but much more spread out, which makes it even harder to care about what happens to those crazy people on the other coast. > fun for them, but what's there to discuss? It's true, there's not a lot to discuss amongst the rational, educated opponent, but here, where 'socialism' means 'The government takes my money and gives it to the black people,' we have a lot of educating to do. And once you get past the terminology, there are a lot of implementation questions. Since there have been relatively few anarchist societies[1], there are a lot of unanswered questions about how they'd be run. Then again, there's a lot of possible ways that a community could be built, and they're not all mutually exclusive. Just like different states have different laws, there are a lot of options for an anarchist community. > The second category is laudible but still offers almost nothing in the way of big-picture political solutions. True. I think that I've already covered that the bigger picture is a smaller picture, though. 1: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_anarc...
geoka9 16y ago
I like to consider myself an "anarcho-democrat" in the sense that I favor democracy and free market for all practical reasons, while recognizing that the state is a necessary evil, which needs to be distrusted, checked upon and controlled by the people as much as practically possible.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Minarchism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Minarchism

by lukevdp 16y ago

face 16y ago

I do not think he is arguing against property rights. I think that forms of anarchy allow for property rights and other individual liberties.

iskander 16y ago
Can you explain more? How can property rights and individual liberties be secured without the police?
astine 16y ago
In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out.
- anamax 16y ago
  > In theory, but not practice. Hobbes particularly, makes the point that without government, property rights are largely unenforcible. The strong will out. Umm, the strong will out even with govt. In fact, govt will enforce the will of the strong. Consider how eminent domain works in the US. One of the seminal cases in the US involved GM wanting to build a plant where a bunch of poor people lived. The local govt took the land under eminent domain and basically gave it to GM. (It's the "poletown" case if you're looking for cites.) Yes, you get to vote, but as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.
  - astine 16y ago
    At least that sheep has a vote. I dislike eminent domain abuse as much as anyone but there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > there is a big difference between what property right abuse looks like now and what it would look like without a discernible and relatively incorrupt government. Those aren't the only possibilities. (And relatively incorrupt is optimistic. It isn't consistently corrupt.) Consider the sudan (no functioning govt) with zimbabwe (malevolent govt). It's not obvious that the sudan is worse. Also, remember that the effective genocides have had govt backing.
steveklabnik 16y ago
ESR might not argue against property rights, because I'd bet he's an "anarcho"-capitalist. All other forms of anarchism don't believe in property, but ancaps do. This is why you'll often (well, in anarchist discussions, anyway) hear that "ancaps aren't anarchists."
lukevdp 16y ago
I thought that as soon as you start introducing rights, you're talking about a libertarian

naner 16y ago

The argument is akin to "beef can give you food poisoning, so we should eradicate all cows". Or "beef can give you food poisoning, we shouldn't eat beef". Actually, it sounds like he is saying "beef always eventually leads to poisoning" so I don't know if your analogy holds up at all. Anarchy doesn't mean no authority, it just means the least amount of justifiable authority. People always associate Anarchy with chaos and lawlessness, which is not correct. We will never see an anarchy society in our lifetime, though. This is more an exercise in idealism. e.g. the only type of political system that is ethically justifiable is anarchy.

steveklabnik 16y ago

> The fabric of the society that has advanced so far in the last 300 years is built on, at the very least, property rights and stability And an anarchist would suggest that that's exactly why the problems that we have have manifested today. Anarchism is something that's hard to have an actual discussion on. The word has too much baggage. Anarchists are viewed as utopians, there's been a lot of inter-faction arguing, and politics are frankly boring. The modern anarchist movement hasn't been able to connect their message to anything that's relevant. As much as I dislike CrimeThinc, they make a really good points in "Your Politics are Boring as Fuck"[1]. Even if you don't think that ridding the world of rulers is a good thing, fundamentally, anarchism's message of truly caring for people still holds value. Groups like Food Not Bombs, Homes not Jails, and many cooperative organizations do a lot of good in the world. You might be surprised to find that even the Black Bloc isn't just a bunch of kids breaking things, though this is endlessly debated every time the G20 comes to town. 1: http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php

iskander 16y ago
>The modern anarchist movement hasn't been able to connect their message to anything that's relevant What is the message? I usually just hear unfocused discontent. Saying "Grrr evil government" makes for a fun sense of solidarity and good conversation as you try to screw that cute girl from your collective. It doesn't, however, lead many people to thinking up scalable alternatives to government. It seems to me that "Anarchism is something that's hard to have an actual discussion on" because most anarchists are either focused on (1) a perpetual oppositional stance to government (fun for them, but what's there to discuss?) or (2) creating or helping a small community. The second category is laudible but still offers almost nothing in the way of big-picture political solutions.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  If I had to sum up what I consider to be the message of anarchism, (and I've only been comfortable calling myself one fairly recently, though I've been studying it for over a year) it would be "The best way to build a society is by empowering individuals through understanding, cooperation, and support." > I usually just hear unfocused discontent. Yeah, this is the exact problem I'm talking about. It's absolutely true, there's a lot of that going around. A large part of the 'why' is that if you're an anarchist, you probably care about politics a lot. And you feel like you have answers. And then you see things like the absolute robbery of the American people via the bank bailout, and the most you see... is some harsh words. Nobody's even upset. A single dollar lost is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. It's easy to become angry when you have very strong feelings, feel that you have answers, and then are totally ignored by most people, while you watch them make the exact mistakes you were trying to warn them about. Not that any of that is an excuse; it's exactly why anarchism has continued to be marginalized. It's something that we'll have to collectively get over in order to move forward, and frankly, I'm not sure if it'll happen any time soon. > thinking up scalable alternatives to government. I think that one of the conclusion that you come to if you follow the anarchist line of thinking is that there is no _scalable_ alternative to government. Once you start building huge communities, the human element of humans is lost. To use the same saying twice in one post, one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic; humans simply can't care for large numbers of other humans. Their humanity disappears. So the only way to move forward is to build a decentralized network of smaller communities, rather than yet bigger ones. The British empire fell because it was growing too large; the American one is following suit. I don't think, for example, nationalized health care can possibly work at the levels of population that America currently has. We're not only significantly larger, but much more spread out, which makes it even harder to care about what happens to those crazy people on the other coast. > fun for them, but what's there to discuss? It's true, there's not a lot to discuss amongst the rational, educated opponent, but here, where 'socialism' means 'The government takes my money and gives it to the black people,' we have a lot of educating to do. And once you get past the terminology, there are a lot of implementation questions. Since there have been relatively few anarchist societies[1], there are a lot of unanswered questions about how they'd be run. Then again, there's a lot of possible ways that a community could be built, and they're not all mutually exclusive. Just like different states have different laws, there are a lot of options for an anarchist community. > The second category is laudible but still offers almost nothing in the way of big-picture political solutions. True. I think that I've already covered that the bigger picture is a smaller picture, though. 1: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_anarc...

geoka9 16y ago

I like to consider myself an "anarcho-democrat" in the sense that I favor democracy and free market for all practical reasons, while recognizing that the state is a necessary evil, which needs to be distrusted, checked upon and controlled by the people as much as practically possible.

steveklabnik 16y ago
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Minarchism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Minarchism