6 ms·

> this is a demonstrably false fairy tale Demonstrably how? > Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? What is a demonstrabl

> this is a demonstrably false fairy tale Demonstrably how? > Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. > It is painfully obvious that we would act much worse under anarchy. Above you said it was "demonstrable" but now seem to be settling for saying it's somehow self-evident. ... Fwiw I don't personally agree with the quoted statement, or rather I agree with only a narrow interpretation of it. I don't think individuals are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion in all situations without having to be forced to. I do think groups are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without external force, given certain conditions: anarchism in my mind is about local* law enforcement rather than external. Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave. *By "local" I just mean internal/within proximity to the individual

murgindrag 6y ago
> Demonstrably how? Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. > What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. Well, we don't have mass rape, looting, or murder. One really needs to compare scale. Democracy seems to be a horrible system, and indeed the worst system, except for all the others (paraphrasing Churchill). > Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave. You're missing scale. SMALL self-regulating organizations do very well. The key condition isn't just about removing external incentives, but also about scale. Once you're at some scale, you're guaranteed to have a few psychopaths who work to game the system to personal benefit. A key thing about small-scale is everyone can say "Adolf is a jerk. Let's swing clear of him." Large scale, he takes over Germany, and onto the world! Likewise, large-scale, you're missing social incentives. Small scale, I can say "I won't steal from you, because you'll think I'm a jerk." Large-scale, try leaving your wallet in the train in almost any major city for 10 minutes. Tribal culture was pretty good on isolated islands. It didn't go Lord of the Flies. That only happened at scale. I've seen largish organizations sustain this for maybe a half-decade or decade, but never longer. At some point, game-theoretical organizational models take over, and things never go back.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. More generally: negative externalities / tragedy of the commons / prisoner's dilemma.
- Mary-Jane 6y ago
  > Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    > ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In the absence of engineered ones, you revert into anarchy, which leads to individuals amassing power and abusing it. Things like Democratic Structures, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution were steps forward to prevent that. Heck, the rigid hierarchy of Ancient Egypt did better than the anarchy which came before. As a primitive form of government, it was incredibly inequitable, but you had far less theft and violence than before. That invention -- explicit governance structures and codified laws -- even in that form, allowed modern civilization.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. They will always do this? What is the source of this knowledge? And I ask that in the literal sense, not rhetorically.
      - julesnp 6y ago
pmachinery 6y ago
> Demonstrably how? The existence/necessity of laws to deter bad behaviour.
- ozborn 6y ago
  I think it is more complicated than that, although I agree in some circumstances laws deter bad behavior. However many laws are passed to protect the bad behavior of the powerful. Moreover, under better environments people may organize themselves effectively with only cultural norms - not laws. Think happy families living together without any laws governing their behavior or tribes with cultural norms protecting a common grazing area.
  - ryanbrunner 6y ago
    As mentioned upthread though, there's a lot of reason to believe these self-regulating small societies work specifically when they're small - once you get to the point where you don't have a personal connection with everyone in your tribe, the social cost of acting out of the established norm decreases - instead of your close friends shunning you, maybe a few strangers think you're an asshole.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    But families also suffer spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse. That in and of itself should make it clear that anarchism is a fairy tale. Sure, I'm a good person that wants to do good by society, you probably are too. Nonetheless there are rapists.
oblio 6y ago
> Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave. And how do you remove those incentives?
- tuesdayrain 6y ago
  Of course such things are possible! All we have to do is <something realistically impossible>.

murgindrag 6y ago

> Demonstrably how? Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. > What is a demonstrably false fairy tale is that we don't act righteously when law enforcement is present. So asking what would happen in its absence seems irrelevant. Well, we don't have mass rape, looting, or murder. One really needs to compare scale. Democracy seems to be a horrible system, and indeed the worst system, except for all the others (paraphrasing Churchill). > Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave. You're missing scale. SMALL self-regulating organizations do very well. The key condition isn't just about removing external incentives, but also about scale. Once you're at some scale, you're guaranteed to have a few psychopaths who work to game the system to personal benefit. A key thing about small-scale is everyone can say "Adolf is a jerk. Let's swing clear of him." Large scale, he takes over Germany, and onto the world! Likewise, large-scale, you're missing social incentives. Small scale, I can say "I won't steal from you, because you'll think I'm a jerk." Large-scale, try leaving your wallet in the train in almost any major city for 10 minutes. Tribal culture was pretty good on isolated islands. It didn't go Lord of the Flies. That only happened at scale. I've seen largish organizations sustain this for maybe a half-decade or decade, but never longer. At some point, game-theoretical organizational models take over, and things never go back.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. More generally: negative externalities / tragedy of the commons / prisoner's dilemma.
Mary-Jane 6y ago
> Tens of thousands of years of human history. Feuding warlords, and slaves, rather than everyone acting together in unity. ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  > ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In the absence of engineered ones, you revert into anarchy, which leads to individuals amassing power and abusing it. Things like Democratic Structures, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution were steps forward to prevent that. Heck, the rigid hierarchy of Ancient Egypt did better than the anarchy which came before. As a primitive form of government, it was incredibly inequitable, but you had far less theft and violence than before. That invention -- explicit governance structures and codified laws -- even in that form, allowed modern civilization.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it. They will always do this? What is the source of this knowledge? And I ask that in the literal sense, not rhetorically.
    - julesnp 6y ago

pmachinery 6y ago

> Demonstrably how? The existence/necessity of laws to deter bad behaviour.

ozborn 6y ago
I think it is more complicated than that, although I agree in some circumstances laws deter bad behavior. However many laws are passed to protect the bad behavior of the powerful. Moreover, under better environments people may organize themselves effectively with only cultural norms - not laws. Think happy families living together without any laws governing their behavior or tribes with cultural norms protecting a common grazing area.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  As mentioned upthread though, there's a lot of reason to believe these self-regulating small societies work specifically when they're small - once you get to the point where you don't have a personal connection with everyone in your tribe, the social cost of acting out of the established norm decreases - instead of your close friends shunning you, maybe a few strangers think you're an asshole.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  But families also suffer spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse. That in and of itself should make it clear that anarchism is a fairy tale. Sure, I'm a good person that wants to do good by society, you probably are too. Nonetheless there are rapists.

oblio 6y ago

> Self-regulating organisations are possible, the only real condition is the removal of external incentives for those organisations to misbehave. And how do you remove those incentives?

tuesdayrain 6y ago
Of course such things are possible! All we have to do is <something realistically impossible>.