6 ms·

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

oblio 6y ago
They don't have to behave better in the presence of authority, they are forced to, that's kind of the point of authority :-)
- __s 6y ago
  Unfortunately authority doesn't behave better in the presence of itself
  - oblio 6y ago
    True, but the real world is about compromises and lesser evils. Formal authority is quite often better than arbitrary, informal authority. And make no mistake, humans are social, their natural congregations are hierarchical.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I'm not sure this is true. Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agriculture, but anarchism doesn't advocate for arbitrary and informal authority, but for limited in any authority at all unless absolutely necessary, in which case it must be directly kept in check.
      - oblio 6y ago
        Regarding humans being organized very loosely until agriculture personally I wouldn't consider that as a plus. We're on HN, just think about the pace of human development before agriculture and after. We were pretty much doing the same thing for half a million years and then in 10000 years: rockets in space! ;-)
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure, but that still directly goes against the argument that humans are naturally hierarchical, because they aren't. And there are ways to have agriculture and industry and compounding scientific advancements without having rigid hierarchies, are there not?
        oblio 6y ago
        They are hierarchical. All primates are. Agriculture just revealed the need for a level of social structure no other species on Earth could achieve before. Regarding your follow-up question, maybe there are ways to achieve the same thing with a radically different social structure. The problem with social changes on this scale is that they are extremely disruptive. I'd rather reform and improve iteratively than rewrite the whole code base ;-)
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        You should consider the issues of iteratively improving the same code base, pushing to prod for hundreds of years! Primate dominance hierarchies are weak, accountable, and constantly challenged, and not even necessary in humans which exhibit other behaviors depending on nature. As a consequences, hierarchy is not necessary in humans and not inherent. That being said, there are ways to move into anarchism that aren't that disruptive as long as the dominant power structure doesn't decide to violently repress it. Syndicalism into market socialism into anarchism is a common one.
        oblio 6y ago
        I'd be curious where anarchism was applied on a large scale for more than a generation and the result was good. Regarding the code analogy, I'd rather have a million pushes to prod than one huge force push that rewrites history;-)
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        But as I said, it's possible to transition to anarchy. You don't need to do it in one bit push. The issue is when the underlying code base is so bad that there is nothing else, but we can certainly try incrementalism. In theory, there's no reason you couldn't go towards and anarchic society via a million small reforms, but in practice you get executed for using your already existing rights if you state that your goal is to do such reforms.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agricultur Even if they were both this and peaceful then, this would only imply that we merely need to dismantle agriculture and the civilization dependent on it to return to that state, which I submit is an unacceptable trade-off to most people. And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        That doesn't follow from the principle. We don't need to dismantle agriculture or anything else, you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. What it means is that hierarchies are not necessary for human organization.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. Where?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The Zapatistas are an example.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        The Zapatista-governed area is at best parasitically technological (it uses imported technology, but neither creates nor maintains much of a technical base). It certainly might be legitimately viewed as a step up for the most systemically disenfranchised, exploited, impoverished communities, but it's not a demonstration of a way that a technological society can be maintained.
        GrantSolar 6y ago
        That hierarchical structures became dominant after the invention of agriculture does not imply that agriculture necessitates hierarchical structures. > And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort. Could you expand on this?
  - andi999 6y ago
    Actually it does, just better training required. I believe the police in Germany is pretty good, but you need at least 3 years (not month) of training.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes - who polieces the authority? Mind you an authority includes medieval kings and cobstantly warrrying feudal lords - they were legitimate authority of their time. I would argue thay society today involve s less tyrany, less authority, and is more peacefull.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  That's funny, I see people behave badly even with the authority all the time. In general though, most people behave mostly good. The ones that behave badly probably would under any social construct. The people I know that got into trouble with the law were the same ones with antisocial tendencies in grade school. I don't believe that the threat of government enforcement really encourages a significant proportion of edge cases to behave better. Due to some unique circumstances, I actually have had the opportunity to see what a relatively anarchist society looks like in low-density areas. It honestly works about the same as it does under more supervision. When the occasional real problems develop, people band together and act as their own police force. What there isn't is a bunch of technicality type laws banning you from doing things that don't affect others.
  - PaulAJ 6y ago
    This is all about Dunbar's Number; the number of people you can "know" in the sense of having stable social relations with. Its about 150 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number). A society smaller than this can be effectively self-policing because everyone keeps track of how everyone else behaves. No money, police, laws or prisons are required because everyone knows what everyone else thinks of their behaviour and wants to stay on the good side of the community that they depend on. So its not a problem. Once a society grows past Dunbar's number this system breaks down. You see people you don't know misbehaving, but they don't suffer any downside because nobody knows who they are. When you have to deal with people you don't know if you can trust them, but you do know that if they rip you off you won't have any comeback. So the communal trust breaks down and you start needing police, courts, laws and prisons. In short, anarchism and "primitive socialism" are nice, but they don't scale.
tuesdayrain 6y ago
I certainly behave better in the presence of authority. It's unlikely I am the only one.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  How do you behave when you yourself have authority? Would you stop respecting social norms and expectations if you did, and go on an egomaniacal power trip?
  - tuesdayrain 6y ago
    Currently I behave because it's in my interest to abide by laws, even those I don't agree with. If all authority disappeared overnight, I believe my best course of action would be to immediately assemble an armed militia so we could enforce a set of rules within a community that we believe are the best. I would still respect many social norms, but definitely not all of them. One thing that comes to mind is that "innocent until proven guilty" goes out the window. If I perceive someone to be a threat then I will use whatever means I have to neutralize them, rather than waiting for some kind of arbitration.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Right, so you agree that it's better for you to have very limited power and exist without authority, in which case you'd have to confirm to most social norms or suffer consequences, than for authority to exist and for people like you to accede to it? Because in our system, if you were to accumulate enough authority it wouldn't be in your interest anymore to follow laws.
      - tuesdayrain 6y ago
        It's only better for me in an idealistic scenario where my local militia succeeds. If a bigger and stronger one comes around then my life could quickly become horrible.
        6y ago
cortic 6y ago
I certainly behave worse in the presence of authority. It's unlikely I am the only one.

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

oblio 6y ago

They don't have to behave better in the presence of authority, they are forced to, that's kind of the point of authority :-)

__s 6y ago
Unfortunately authority doesn't behave better in the presence of itself
- oblio 6y ago
  True, but the real world is about compromises and lesser evils. Formal authority is quite often better than arbitrary, informal authority. And make no mistake, humans are social, their natural congregations are hierarchical.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I'm not sure this is true. Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agriculture, but anarchism doesn't advocate for arbitrary and informal authority, but for limited in any authority at all unless absolutely necessary, in which case it must be directly kept in check.
    - oblio 6y ago
      Regarding humans being organized very loosely until agriculture personally I wouldn't consider that as a plus. We're on HN, just think about the pace of human development before agriculture and after. We were pretty much doing the same thing for half a million years and then in 10000 years: rockets in space! ;-)
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure, but that still directly goes against the argument that humans are naturally hierarchical, because they aren't. And there are ways to have agriculture and industry and compounding scientific advancements without having rigid hierarchies, are there not?
        oblio 6y ago
        They are hierarchical. All primates are. Agriculture just revealed the need for a level of social structure no other species on Earth could achieve before. Regarding your follow-up question, maybe there are ways to achieve the same thing with a radically different social structure. The problem with social changes on this scale is that they are extremely disruptive. I'd rather reform and improve iteratively than rewrite the whole code base ;-)
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        You should consider the issues of iteratively improving the same code base, pushing to prod for hundreds of years! Primate dominance hierarchies are weak, accountable, and constantly challenged, and not even necessary in humans which exhibit other behaviors depending on nature. As a consequences, hierarchy is not necessary in humans and not inherent. That being said, there are ways to move into anarchism that aren't that disruptive as long as the dominant power structure doesn't decide to violently repress it. Syndicalism into market socialism into anarchism is a common one.
        oblio 6y ago
        I'd be curious where anarchism was applied on a large scale for more than a generation and the result was good. Regarding the code analogy, I'd rather have a million pushes to prod than one huge force push that rewrites history;-)
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        But as I said, it's possible to transition to anarchy. You don't need to do it in one bit push. The issue is when the underlying code base is so bad that there is nothing else, but we can certainly try incrementalism. In theory, there's no reason you couldn't go towards and anarchic society via a million small reforms, but in practice you get executed for using your already existing rights if you state that your goal is to do such reforms.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agricultur Even if they were both this and peaceful then, this would only imply that we merely need to dismantle agriculture and the civilization dependent on it to return to that state, which I submit is an unacceptable trade-off to most people. And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        That doesn't follow from the principle. We don't need to dismantle agriculture or anything else, you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. What it means is that hierarchies are not necessary for human organization.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. Where?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The Zapatistas are an example.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        The Zapatista-governed area is at best parasitically technological (it uses imported technology, but neither creates nor maintains much of a technical base). It certainly might be legitimately viewed as a step up for the most systemically disenfranchised, exploited, impoverished communities, but it's not a demonstration of a way that a technological society can be maintained.
      - GrantSolar 6y ago
        That hierarchical structures became dominant after the invention of agriculture does not imply that agriculture necessitates hierarchical structures. > And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort. Could you expand on this?
- andi999 6y ago
  Actually it does, just better training required. I believe the police in Germany is pretty good, but you need at least 3 years (not month) of training.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes - who polieces the authority? Mind you an authority includes medieval kings and cobstantly warrrying feudal lords - they were legitimate authority of their time. I would argue thay society today involve s less tyrany, less authority, and is more peacefull.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
That's funny, I see people behave badly even with the authority all the time. In general though, most people behave mostly good. The ones that behave badly probably would under any social construct. The people I know that got into trouble with the law were the same ones with antisocial tendencies in grade school. I don't believe that the threat of government enforcement really encourages a significant proportion of edge cases to behave better. Due to some unique circumstances, I actually have had the opportunity to see what a relatively anarchist society looks like in low-density areas. It honestly works about the same as it does under more supervision. When the occasional real problems develop, people band together and act as their own police force. What there isn't is a bunch of technicality type laws banning you from doing things that don't affect others.
- PaulAJ 6y ago
  This is all about Dunbar's Number; the number of people you can "know" in the sense of having stable social relations with. Its about 150 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number). A society smaller than this can be effectively self-policing because everyone keeps track of how everyone else behaves. No money, police, laws or prisons are required because everyone knows what everyone else thinks of their behaviour and wants to stay on the good side of the community that they depend on. So its not a problem. Once a society grows past Dunbar's number this system breaks down. You see people you don't know misbehaving, but they don't suffer any downside because nobody knows who they are. When you have to deal with people you don't know if you can trust them, but you do know that if they rip you off you won't have any comeback. So the communal trust breaks down and you start needing police, courts, laws and prisons. In short, anarchism and "primitive socialism" are nice, but they don't scale.

tuesdayrain 6y ago

I certainly behave better in the presence of authority. It's unlikely I am the only one.

sudosysgen 6y ago
How do you behave when you yourself have authority? Would you stop respecting social norms and expectations if you did, and go on an egomaniacal power trip?
- tuesdayrain 6y ago
  Currently I behave because it's in my interest to abide by laws, even those I don't agree with. If all authority disappeared overnight, I believe my best course of action would be to immediately assemble an armed militia so we could enforce a set of rules within a community that we believe are the best. I would still respect many social norms, but definitely not all of them. One thing that comes to mind is that "innocent until proven guilty" goes out the window. If I perceive someone to be a threat then I will use whatever means I have to neutralize them, rather than waiting for some kind of arbitration.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Right, so you agree that it's better for you to have very limited power and exist without authority, in which case you'd have to confirm to most social norms or suffer consequences, than for authority to exist and for people like you to accede to it? Because in our system, if you were to accumulate enough authority it wouldn't be in your interest anymore to follow laws.
    - tuesdayrain 6y ago
      It's only better for me in an idealistic scenario where my local militia succeeds. If a bigger and stronger one comes around then my life could quickly become horrible.
      - 6y ago

cortic 6y ago

I certainly behave worse in the presence of authority. It's unlikely I am the only one.