4 ms·

Some 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.

by erinnh 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago
It'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 ago
  Not 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 ago
      In 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 ago
        Calling 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 ago
        So 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 ago
        How would you prevent that without a power structure?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        How 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.
      - sneak 6y ago
        > In 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. I think this should be re-examined through the view of the ~1 million Iraqis recently murdered by one such “organized society”. I don’t think the (violence-based) organization has the set of benefits you think it does.
  - komali2 6y ago
    What 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 ago
      If 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 ago
        Falsely assumed premise: that this "scaled" society is necessary or ethical.
    - dbsmith83 6y ago
      Wow, 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 ago
        Because they called themselves Communist? Calling yourself something doesn't make it true.
        dbsmith83 6y ago
        Yeah, 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?

Some 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.

by erinnh 6y ago

Some 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 ago

It'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 ago
Not 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 ago
    In 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 ago
      Calling 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 ago
        So 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 ago
        How would you prevent that without a power structure?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        How 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.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > In 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. I think this should be re-examined through the view of the ~1 million Iraqis recently murdered by one such “organized society”. I don’t think the (violence-based) organization has the set of benefits you think it does.
- komali2 6y ago
  What 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Falsely assumed premise: that this "scaled" society is necessary or ethical.
  - dbsmith83 6y ago
    Wow, 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 ago
      Because they called themselves Communist? Calling yourself something doesn't make it true.
      - dbsmith83 6y ago
        Yeah, 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?