3 ms·

This is where conversations about anarchism often break down. Forgetting the language about everyone being for themselves, parent’s question boils down to “wha

This is where conversations about anarchism often break down. Forgetting the language about everyone being for themselves, parent’s question boils down to “what happens when people don’t cooperate?”. The answer to that can’t be “people will cooperate”. I think when you’re thinking about social structures of all kinds a useful perspective is to ask whether you’re creating a prisoner’s dilemma, and what the consequences of that could be.

kstenerud 2y ago
The answer to any philosophy containing "If everyone would just XYZ" is "No."
AndyNemmity 2y ago
Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate. Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it. Certainly unjustifiable authority won't cooperate.
- causal 2y ago
  Trying to figure out if that really leaves any room for non-cooperation. It sounds a lot like "cooperation is voluntary but you will be dismantled if you don't"
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    It leaves room for non-cooperation. Although we really must define what non-cooperation means in this context. Ending Slavery didn't leave room for the decision to non-cooperate with it, by continuing to own Slaves, or to be a Slave. Certainly depends on the specifics. Just like Slavery was dismantled with no choice for those who wished it to continue.
    - causal 2y ago
      Can it tolerate someone having private property?
      - AndyNemmity 2y ago
        This is a very difficult question to answer. Because it's a gradient. Certainly it could tolerate it within a transition. You could imagine Worker controlled corporations entirely, however with private property still existing. I also think it depends heavily on the definition of private property, which is a specific set of rules in every locality. Certainly some of those rules would be different. But I think what you're getting at is, "What's the ideal?", and the answer I think would not tolerate private property. But honestly, I'm not sure I believe that. Again, I can think of definitions I think work.
        goatlover 2y ago
        And if some communities wish to be anarcho-capitalist, would they be permitted, or would other communities try to interfere?

kstenerud 2y ago

The answer to any philosophy containing "If everyone would just XYZ" is "No."

AndyNemmity 2y ago

Anarchism doesn't require everyone to cooperate. Anarchism requires identifying justifiable authority, and dismantling it. Certainly unjustifiable authority won't cooperate.

causal 2y ago
Trying to figure out if that really leaves any room for non-cooperation. It sounds a lot like "cooperation is voluntary but you will be dismantled if you don't"
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  It leaves room for non-cooperation. Although we really must define what non-cooperation means in this context. Ending Slavery didn't leave room for the decision to non-cooperate with it, by continuing to own Slaves, or to be a Slave. Certainly depends on the specifics. Just like Slavery was dismantled with no choice for those who wished it to continue.
  - causal 2y ago
    Can it tolerate someone having private property?
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      This is a very difficult question to answer. Because it's a gradient. Certainly it could tolerate it within a transition. You could imagine Worker controlled corporations entirely, however with private property still existing. I also think it depends heavily on the definition of private property, which is a specific set of rules in every locality. Certainly some of those rules would be different. But I think what you're getting at is, "What's the ideal?", and the answer I think would not tolerate private property. But honestly, I'm not sure I believe that. Again, I can think of definitions I think work.
      - goatlover 2y ago
        And if some communities wish to be anarcho-capitalist, would they be permitted, or would other communities try to interfere?