7 ms·

I don't understand anarchy. Take littering for an example. Would an anarchist system (oxymoron alert) have fines for littering? How about signs and a slogan? TV

by csours 6y ago

I don't understand anarchy. Take littering for an example. Would an anarchist system (oxymoron alert) have fines for littering? How about signs and a slogan? TV advertisements? Another example: I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... but I sincerely believe that without volunteers watching, that number would go up sharply. Another reason people behave is the threat of their badge being revoked. > "For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other." Hahaha no. Just no. People may not have lived under the control of formal governments, but there is always some sort of power structure. They may not have killed each other with systematic warfare, but small raids and personal violence killed a lot of people per capita. --- Having said all that, I do think that internalizing the rules of society does far more than overt displays of power, like police or military parades; but I also think that the police play an important role in decreasing public crime. However, I also do not think that simply adding more police or increasing the harshness of enforcement will decrease public crime further. It's all Pareto Principle.

vidarh 6y ago
Consider that your conventions do not require the power of law enforcement to be able to deal with most problems. You can self-organise to set rules, and show away people who refuse to comply. Anarchists want more of that, and less of power imposed from above. Proudhon, the father anarchism, was a mutualist - he wanted most functions of society to be contracted between people,the way a convention goer agrees to terms when entering a convention. It's not no rules and no enforcement, but voluntary association and consent and stripping away coercion wherever possible.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > You can self-organise to set rules, and show away people who refuse to comply. Aka "we don't need law enforcement, we can become law enforcement ourselves". And then you have law enforcement. Sounds like a reset more than an alternative.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Not quite so simple: this is what "community policing" is all about. Many portland protesters were there because they wanted the national guard out. National guard soldiers who didn't live there, weren't members of the community... Who could act shitty to community members with no consequence.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Sure, but that's a reset. "I don't like the persons who do the law enforcement, I want to become the law enforcement". And then, of course, not be replaced by somebody who doesn't like that style of law enforcement. That would most likely quickly lead to massive segregation by any major criteria available, as "community policing" essentially means "no written laws, no recourse, we'll apply them as we see fit", ergo if you're not tightly aligned with the majority in your specific area, you're going to have a terrible time - so you leave for a place where they are more like you. Presumably while leaving your stuff behind to provide valuable "community resources". I'm not saying that that couldn't be a good thing (homogeneity = less conflict), but I always get the feeling that there's a lot of magic involved ("we will find ways to come to consensus", "once we are free, all disagreement vanishes", which often sounds like wink wink and a few mass graves somewhere) and a lot of what is hand-waved away will present extremely large problems that will quickly make most people long for the stable, predictable and relatively tolerant society we have today.
      - pqhwan 6y ago
        > “I don't like the persons who do the law enforcement, I want to become the law enforcement" IMO that’s an overly pessimistic view of those who push for community policing. In reality, it’s more like “we want people with stakes in the community’s wellness to police it, not those who see it as their daytime stomping ground.” > That would most likely quickly lead to massive segregation Really? Community policing = “no written laws”? You don’t think there’s a middle ground between “friendly neighborhood policemen” and Judge Dredd? > if you're not tightly aligned with the majority in your specific area, you're going to have a terrible time Right, because we currently live in a society that’s totally not segregated by wealth, race, culture, religion, sexuality, or political views. And clearly, the police system has been our bulwark against non-aligning minorities being persecuted! That’s what the protests are all about, right?
danielhua 6y ago
I sincerely thought the author was joking at first. My lived experience is similar - some folks just genuinely act crappy just because they can, not because of "is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible." Ironically, the more well-off are more likely to engage in explicitly anti-social behavior[1]...I'd hate to live in a world of anarchist Gordon Gekkos without an SEC. [1] A quick article with various linked studies: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/wealth-can-make-us-selfish-and-stingy-two-psychologists-explain-why/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/wealth-can-make-us-se...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Gordon Gekkos under Anarchy wouldn't be rich (because significant material accumulation is impossible without private property), so that wouldn't be a problem. As for a tiny minority of assholes, they have been dealt with for millions of years using social norms and communal existence.
otherme123 6y ago
Taking littering: how littered is your home? Your work place? What about a Comercial Center? In an anarchy society, the littering is limited to your own property. Yes, you can live like a pig, as long as you don't litter properties of others. If you throw trash in other people property, you don't face a fine, but you will be expelled from the property and face a trial. In our current society, littering is a problem in public spaces: streets, rivers, sea, etc. In other words: is a problem created by the government. The main mistake of non-anarchist people is to believe that there are no rules in anarchy, or that it equates chaos or extreme individualism. But there are: the rules that people gives to themselves. An example: religions form anarchic structures. You can join and leave a religion at will, but they have a tight set of rules their members should follow. A power structure exists, but you can accept or leave it. You might argue that a religion has a government, and thus it isn't "anarchy" according to the definition. But as I said, you can accept or reject the rules, and live under other religion rules, create your own religion or without religion at all. Anarchy equates to "stateless society based on voluntary associations".
- windsurfer 6y ago
  Could you expand on how one could face a trial for littering in a society that has no government?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    There is no reason not to have government, as long as there is no state and no master/slave relation.
    - andi999 6y ago
      So there is a trial, but no punishment?
- bhupy 6y ago
  The problem I’m having with this is that, while yes you don’t have to worry about the tragedy of the commons in your own home or church or place of work...it isn’t feasible to live your entire life outside the commons. How/where would one receive goods & services? How would one travel from A to B, and over whose infrastructure?
jtolmar 6y ago
The system a convention uses of having volunteers watching for bad behavior is actually already similar to anarchist concepts of community self defense. Under an anarchist society, the folks tasked with handling these sorts of things would be volunteers elected by the community (in a con they're instead volunteers screened by the con committee). There would also be an expectation that, in public spaces, it's everyone's job to step in and stop a problem like, say, sexual harassment (which some cons also expect). Having seen these principles in action at CHOP, I think it really does provide a better and more equitable outcome. However, anarchist systems do suffer from moving very slowly at times.
- andi999 6y ago
  I posted this already to a different question, but tell me: according to what you said, isnt the KKK a good example for this? It came from the community, was supported by the community, also they were very outspoken against (falsely accused) sexual harassment. Playing the devils advocate here, but I really would like to know why this is not an example of anarchy; of course answers like people will behave differently if there is no capitalism I find hard to accept without evidence.
  - jtolmar 6y ago
    The KKK enforces law outside of its community. It's not like they're involving black people in the decision of who gets lynched. Anarchists are on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum, even including the wrongdoer in the decision process for what the punishment is, when possible.
    - andi999 6y ago
      Thanks for the answer, but what does that mean practically? Anarchy is only for anarchists (which the correct mindset)? What about all the other people?
      - jtolmar 6y ago
        One of the fundamental ideas behind anarchy is that legitimate authority only comes from the community that authority affects. So, say you live in an anarchist commune, but do not believe in anarchy yourself. You're still invited to the meetings where policy is decided, and while you're not forced to, there's a lot of peer pressure to attend. You're still subject to the group's decisions. Say you completely disagree with this and want to go do something else. The commune tries to get you to attend a meeting about how to respect your wishes to be excluded, possibly sends a delegate if you refuse to participate in even that. They do their best to accommodate whatever it is you're trying to do, within reason (and anarchists are usually very accommodating). People who are extremely stubborn and to the point of being borderline hypothetical are a problem for the anarchist system, but in the end the solution is chosen by a bunch of humans thinking about the situation, and it's not like any other system has a better source of reasoning than humans.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... This was my problem with the article. Yes, most people do act exactly as you say. But what if you get that entitled asshole who does actually cut in line? Because there are people out there who will do that. Now what do you do? Resort to mob justice? There's a segment of the population that won't act that way towards others, and that segment is WHY we have those laws in place.
- komali2 6y ago
  This happens today, what do we do about it today? Are laws preventing mass shooters? Sociopathic killers?
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    The answer is yes. I'll never understand why so many people believe that if something isn't perfect, it's broken. All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios. They're just not preventing all of the them. And you know what? That's good. Freedom has inherent risk. I don't want to live in a society where we're so unfree that our laws are able to prevent all crime.
    - komali2 6y ago
      > All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios I don't find articles like this very often. I do find many articles of cia and fbi failure, of the nsa trampling constitutional freedoms, of tsa failing 98% of audits though.
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        that you've found even a single one means the laws do, in fact, prevent these things from happening. That's just how logic works.

by csours 6y ago

vidarh 6y ago

Consider that your conventions do not require the power of law enforcement to be able to deal with most problems. You can self-organise to set rules, and show away people who refuse to comply. Anarchists want more of that, and less of power imposed from above. Proudhon, the father anarchism, was a mutualist - he wanted most functions of society to be contracted between people,the way a convention goer agrees to terms when entering a convention. It's not no rules and no enforcement, but voluntary association and consent and stripping away coercion wherever possible.

luckylion 6y ago
> You can self-organise to set rules, and show away people who refuse to comply. Aka "we don't need law enforcement, we can become law enforcement ourselves". And then you have law enforcement. Sounds like a reset more than an alternative.
- komali2 6y ago
  Not quite so simple: this is what "community policing" is all about. Many portland protesters were there because they wanted the national guard out. National guard soldiers who didn't live there, weren't members of the community... Who could act shitty to community members with no consequence.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Sure, but that's a reset. "I don't like the persons who do the law enforcement, I want to become the law enforcement". And then, of course, not be replaced by somebody who doesn't like that style of law enforcement. That would most likely quickly lead to massive segregation by any major criteria available, as "community policing" essentially means "no written laws, no recourse, we'll apply them as we see fit", ergo if you're not tightly aligned with the majority in your specific area, you're going to have a terrible time - so you leave for a place where they are more like you. Presumably while leaving your stuff behind to provide valuable "community resources". I'm not saying that that couldn't be a good thing (homogeneity = less conflict), but I always get the feeling that there's a lot of magic involved ("we will find ways to come to consensus", "once we are free, all disagreement vanishes", which often sounds like wink wink and a few mass graves somewhere) and a lot of what is hand-waved away will present extremely large problems that will quickly make most people long for the stable, predictable and relatively tolerant society we have today.
    - pqhwan 6y ago
      > “I don't like the persons who do the law enforcement, I want to become the law enforcement" IMO that’s an overly pessimistic view of those who push for community policing. In reality, it’s more like “we want people with stakes in the community’s wellness to police it, not those who see it as their daytime stomping ground.” > That would most likely quickly lead to massive segregation Really? Community policing = “no written laws”? You don’t think there’s a middle ground between “friendly neighborhood policemen” and Judge Dredd? > if you're not tightly aligned with the majority in your specific area, you're going to have a terrible time Right, because we currently live in a society that’s totally not segregated by wealth, race, culture, religion, sexuality, or political views. And clearly, the police system has been our bulwark against non-aligning minorities being persecuted! That’s what the protests are all about, right?

danielhua 6y ago

I sincerely thought the author was joking at first. My lived experience is similar - some folks just genuinely act crappy just because they can, not because of "is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible." Ironically, the more well-off are more likely to engage in explicitly anti-social behavior[1]...I'd hate to live in a world of anarchist Gordon Gekkos without an SEC. [1] A quick article with various linked studies: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/wealth-can-make-us-selfish-and-stingy-two-psychologists-explain-why/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/wealth-can-make-us-se...

sudosysgen 6y ago
Gordon Gekkos under Anarchy wouldn't be rich (because significant material accumulation is impossible without private property), so that wouldn't be a problem. As for a tiny minority of assholes, they have been dealt with for millions of years using social norms and communal existence.

otherme123 6y ago

Taking littering: how littered is your home? Your work place? What about a Comercial Center? In an anarchy society, the littering is limited to your own property. Yes, you can live like a pig, as long as you don't litter properties of others. If you throw trash in other people property, you don't face a fine, but you will be expelled from the property and face a trial. In our current society, littering is a problem in public spaces: streets, rivers, sea, etc. In other words: is a problem created by the government. The main mistake of non-anarchist people is to believe that there are no rules in anarchy, or that it equates chaos or extreme individualism. But there are: the rules that people gives to themselves. An example: religions form anarchic structures. You can join and leave a religion at will, but they have a tight set of rules their members should follow. A power structure exists, but you can accept or leave it. You might argue that a religion has a government, and thus it isn't "anarchy" according to the definition. But as I said, you can accept or reject the rules, and live under other religion rules, create your own religion or without religion at all. Anarchy equates to "stateless society based on voluntary associations".

windsurfer 6y ago
Could you expand on how one could face a trial for littering in a society that has no government?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  There is no reason not to have government, as long as there is no state and no master/slave relation.
  - andi999 6y ago
    So there is a trial, but no punishment?
bhupy 6y ago
The problem I’m having with this is that, while yes you don’t have to worry about the tragedy of the commons in your own home or church or place of work...it isn’t feasible to live your entire life outside the commons. How/where would one receive goods & services? How would one travel from A to B, and over whose infrastructure?

jtolmar 6y ago

The system a convention uses of having volunteers watching for bad behavior is actually already similar to anarchist concepts of community self defense. Under an anarchist society, the folks tasked with handling these sorts of things would be volunteers elected by the community (in a con they're instead volunteers screened by the con committee). There would also be an expectation that, in public spaces, it's everyone's job to step in and stop a problem like, say, sexual harassment (which some cons also expect). Having seen these principles in action at CHOP, I think it really does provide a better and more equitable outcome. However, anarchist systems do suffer from moving very slowly at times.

andi999 6y ago
I posted this already to a different question, but tell me: according to what you said, isnt the KKK a good example for this? It came from the community, was supported by the community, also they were very outspoken against (falsely accused) sexual harassment. Playing the devils advocate here, but I really would like to know why this is not an example of anarchy; of course answers like people will behave differently if there is no capitalism I find hard to accept without evidence.
- jtolmar 6y ago
  The KKK enforces law outside of its community. It's not like they're involving black people in the decision of who gets lynched. Anarchists are on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum, even including the wrongdoer in the decision process for what the punishment is, when possible.
  - andi999 6y ago
    Thanks for the answer, but what does that mean practically? Anarchy is only for anarchists (which the correct mindset)? What about all the other people?
    - jtolmar 6y ago
      One of the fundamental ideas behind anarchy is that legitimate authority only comes from the community that authority affects. So, say you live in an anarchist commune, but do not believe in anarchy yourself. You're still invited to the meetings where policy is decided, and while you're not forced to, there's a lot of peer pressure to attend. You're still subject to the group's decisions. Say you completely disagree with this and want to go do something else. The commune tries to get you to attend a meeting about how to respect your wishes to be excluded, possibly sends a delegate if you refuse to participate in even that. They do their best to accommodate whatever it is you're trying to do, within reason (and anarchists are usually very accommodating). People who are extremely stubborn and to the point of being borderline hypothetical are a problem for the anarchist system, but in the end the solution is chosen by a bunch of humans thinking about the situation, and it's not like any other system has a better source of reasoning than humans.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

> I regularly volunteer at conventions. Somewhere between 90 and 95% of people follow the rules without much prompting. 5-10% of people don't... This was my problem with the article. Yes, most people do act exactly as you say. But what if you get that entitled asshole who does actually cut in line? Because there are people out there who will do that. Now what do you do? Resort to mob justice? There's a segment of the population that won't act that way towards others, and that segment is WHY we have those laws in place.

komali2 6y ago
This happens today, what do we do about it today? Are laws preventing mass shooters? Sociopathic killers?
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  The answer is yes. I'll never understand why so many people believe that if something isn't perfect, it's broken. All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios. They're just not preventing all of the them. And you know what? That's good. Freedom has inherent risk. I don't want to live in a society where we're so unfree that our laws are able to prevent all crime.
  - komali2 6y ago
    > All one has to do is read a single article discussing law enforcement finding and preventing a bomb or a shooter to know that our laws are, in fact, preventing these scenarios I don't find articles like this very often. I do find many articles of cia and fbi failure, of the nsa trampling constitutional freedoms, of tsa failing 98% of audits though.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      that you've found even a single one means the laws do, in fact, prevent these things from happening. That's just how logic works.