10 ms·
Yeah, I thought this was funny too. I literally read the same sentence and thought to myself: "ok, I am definitely not an anarchist.
by waihtis 6y ago
Yeah, I thought this was funny too. I literally read the same sentence and thought to myself: "ok, I am definitely not an anarchist.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoSo you only make reasonable choices because you are forced to?
- erinnh 6y agoSome times, yes. And some times multiplied by however many people there are results in a lot of some times that people wouldn't be forced to in an anarchy.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIt's not a "some times" statement, it posits that humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced. That people sometimes behave unreasonably is a different matter.
- erinnh 6y agoNot really. It is very relevant. You only need someone to behave unreasonable even once to destroy multiple peoples lives. There are enough psychopaths in the world to fuck up any kind of system that's not completely based on separation of powers. I would posit that communism would probably also be pretty nice for most people, if it actually worked. So far it hasn't, and its pretty unrealistic that it ever will. That's also my stance on anarchy. Idealist, but unrealistic.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>Not really. It is very relevant. You only need someone to behave unreasonable even once to destroy multiple peoples lives These things are true whether or not you believe humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced. Forcing people isn't stopping these psychopaths from destroying lives, and there's at least reason to believe it helps push them to action.
- username90 6y agoIn an organized society a psychopath can kill a few in a murder spree. In an unorganized society the psychopath can gather and organize a lot of thugs to loot and burn millions of homes. Has happened many times in history. I know which one I prefer. The gun argument actually works here, if you ban good guys from organizing then all organizations will be bad ones. And an organized group of people always wins against unorganized groups.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoCalling the societies being discussed "unorganized" isn't a fair view of the topic, and the rest of your post rather depends on that point of view.
- username90 6y agoSo how would your anarchist utopia deal with an army of thousands raiding your village? > the rest of your post rather depends on that point of view. The need to feel safe from raiders is fairly universal.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago"Thousands of raiders" don't magically appear, you prevent them by preventing the conditions necessary for thousands of people to unite with the goal of hurting others.
- username90 6y agoHow would you prevent that without a power structure?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoHow does a power structure prevent it? Raiders are a result of people unable to live off their of own labor, generally as a result of the exploitation of others.
- komali2 6y agoWhat examples of communism are you looking at that "haven't worked?" I really hope you aren't about to suggest the soviet union, that would be silly, considering it had a state, social classes, currency, and no general ownership of the means of production, and therefore wasn't communism. Might surprise you to learn that communism is working this very day, on communes all across the world. Also, the basic tenants of it have manifested themselves in various civilizations throughout history.
- erinnh 6y agoIf a system doesn't work in a larger society it's not a system that can replace our current one that somewhat works on that scale.
- komali2 6y agoFalsely assumed premise: that this "scaled" society is necessary or ethical.
- dbsmith83 6y agoWow, if Soviet Union wasn't communist, wonder why there is such a gigantic section about it here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Soviet_Union
- boomboomsubban 6y agoBecause they called themselves Communist? Calling yourself something doesn't make it true.
- dbsmith83 6y agoYeah, I think I'm gonna go with the vast amount of documented sources on this one
- ByteJockey 6y ago>I really hope you aren't about to suggest the soviet union, that would be silly, considering it had a state, social classes, currency, and no general ownership of the means of production, and therefore wasn't communism. Y'know, this is a fair point for a philosophical conversation. It's a terrible point in a conversation about deciding how to actually organize society, however. You can't ultimately know what people's intentions are before the fact. How other people who claimed to have the same ideology behaved once they gained power is inherently relevant. Let's turn this around for a second. Let's say someone comes to you and says "Hitler got fascism totally wrong". It's actually a really great ideology that Hitler violated by doing X, Y, and Z. Would you give this person power in the real world?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- username90 6y agoWould you pay the same amount of tax as you do today if you weren't forced? Do you believe others would? Do you think that having taxes to pay for school and roads is unreasonable?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoThe principle of voluntary association addresses these issues. If your needs and wants were actually considered, you would be more willing to pay taxes.
- username90 6y agoThat is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is a reason unions has to force its members to pay dues and not just live on donations.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoThat is an example of voluntary association. They chose to gain the benefits of the union, they need to pay the dues.
- username90 6y agoMy point is that voluntary donations isn't enough to run much at all, even for organizations that the worker is in control of. And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoVoluntary association, not voluntary donations. People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore.
- 3PS 6y agoThere is a world of difference between believing that you, yourself, are capable of behaving reasonably without instructions, and believing the same for every single other person.
- waihtis 6y agoHow did you infer that from my comment?
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIf you don't believe humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced, you're only living reasonably as you're being forced or you view yourself as "special."
- waihtis 6y agoFalse. I can live reasonably and believe most others would too, but also believe a sizeable enough populace would not - harming the whole populace.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoSo you are special and other people need to be ruled.
- waihtis 6y agoHow does it make me ”special”, if the majority is exactly the same as me? I think that’s the opposite of special.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoYou think there is a group of people inferior to you that need to be ruled.
- waihtis 6y agoI think you are confused about what the discussion here concerns.
- 6y ago
- cortesoft 6y agoHere is the thing... a reasonable choice for an individual is not the same as a reasonable choice for a group. A classic example is something like fishing. As an individual, it is entirely reasonable for me to catch as many fish as possible. I won’t put a dent into the fish population, and the more fish I catch, the better it is for me. However, if everyone fishes as much as they want, the fisheries will be depleted. It is reasonable for an individual to fish as much as they want, but not for a society. So why doesn’t everyone just fish less, because that is the reasonable thing for the society to do? Well, in an anarchy, I can only choose for myself. If I fish less, but everyone else still fishes as much as they want, then I will have less fish AND the fishery will still be depleted. I am worse off for no gain; it is clearly reasonable for me to fish as much as I can, since the fishery is going to be depleted no matter what. Even if by a miracle everyone else agreed to voluntarily fish less, it would STILL be in my interest to ‘defect’ and fish as much as I want. My individual choice isn’t going to cause an issue if everyone else is already fishing less, so now I get more fish AND the fishery is fine. Bottom line, no matter what everyone else does, my rational choice is to fish as much as I want. If everyone is rational, the fishery will be depleted. This is known as a collective action problem, and is a type of prisoner’s dilemma. You can’t get out of it through individual rationality. You have to approach the problem collectively.
- sneak 6y agoThere’s precedent for human beings cooperating on matters like this to, say, prevent overfishing. What makes you think such coordination would be impossible in the absence of a hierarchy that boils down to “obey these rules or we’ll put a gun in your face”? Most humans are reasonable and cooperative.
- cortesoft 6y agoNo, I am not saying the threat of violence is the only way to coerce people. I am saying there will need to be coercion of some kind, and relying on individuals making the best choices for themselves does not solve all the problems.
- 6y ago