10 ms·
The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms in
by snitko 13y ago
The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms instead of subjects of one big system and will be able to choose laws they like while at the same time not interfering directly with others who chose different laws? You mean that all of a sudden majority would lose its power to dictate minorities how to live their lives and gay people all over the world can start marrying each other simply because they are customers of a different firm by their voluntary choice? I say impossible! We need government. Anyone who says we don't is an anarchist and we all know anarchists are bad for ya.
- ricardobeat 13y agoIt's called Polycentric Law[1] and people who actually think it's a good idea seem to exist in larger than zero quantities. See this entertaining thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5009244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5009244 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
- eru 13y agosnitko actually approves, I guess.
- ricardobeat 13y agoOh. Momentary sarcasm detector failure. His scenario is a little too bright though... more like minorities getting exterminated by the conservative & powerful.
- hrvbr 13y agoAlso http://www.panarchy.org/ http://www.panarchy.org/
- unimpressive 13y agoThis wasn't funny, please stop.
- snowwrestler 13y agoThe strongest argument against private law is that that is how law used to operate, and our ancestors deemed it so unworkable that they invented the system of open public law we know today.
- snitko 13y agoWell, then maybe we could argue the same about religion: atheism and then pantheism didn't really work, so we invented organized religions with one major god. Relying on the wisdom of ancestors is a sure way to avoid growth and to not acquire knowledge, and it is precisely this trait in people through which they are usually manipulated.
- snowwrestler 13y agoYour analogy is backward; early civilizations were far more dominated by religious beliefs than we are today.
- wikiburner 13y agoReligion didn't always exist. In fact, I would guess that it didn't for the majority of human history, although it's ultimately speculation on both of our parts.
- derleth 13y agoReligion (by way of magical thinking) is one of the things that defines humanity. We have evidence of it even in Neanderthal sites, given that we find them in caves, with their feet pointed east more often than not, with flower pollen on them in places in caves where we don't otherwise find flower pollen. Only recently have we been able to overcome it.
- wikiburner 13y agoWell, I guess it depends on how broadly you want to define religion. A handful of traditional and possibly superstitious behaviors and cave paintings of the big, scary blob of fire in the sky could qualify, but I think we were talking about a much more complex set of beliefs and value systems involving omnipotent, omniscient being(s). Were the seeds of religion sown in primitive peoples observations of and attempts to reckon with all the scary shit they would witness in the natural world? Absolutely. But any "definitive" statements on pre-historical belief systems are probably anthropological hearsay, possibly weighted by our current knowledge of and feelings towards religion. What was going on back then could have been just slightly more complex than a dog hiding under the bed when there's thunder. And keep in mind, we're talking about a 200,000 year run up to recorded history. However, I'm sure there was a more complex oral tradition of storytelling and mythmaking that was starting to develop before the Sumerians took off.
- pinchyfingers 13y ago[Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.] Crazy anarchist. Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists. Start with this guy and get back to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism is kind of crazy in my opinion, but I think attacking any ideas by disqualifying with adjectives like crazy is extremely narrow-minded and leads to poor results, even if you're talking about statists. Just because you've never heard of something, don't be so immature to dismiss it without thinking it through... you expose yourself as ignorant of the hard work of many intelligent people that have come before you.
- xenophanes 13y agoWhile there are level-headed anarchists (e.g. William Godwin), Rothbard is a terrible example. He was an anti-semite and thought children were property. He wrote a letter to Ayn Rand about his serious psychological problems.
- icebraining 13y agoIn your self-righteous anger, you clearly missed snitko's sarcasm. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089775
- pinchyfingers 13y agoTouché
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- unimpressive 13y agoSince we're now on the subject. I notice that there seems to be a very high turnover of young people from the various forms of anarchism as they get older. Would anybody who fits this description like to elaborate on why that happened? Found a convincing argument? General disillusionment with humanity?
- derleth 13y agoIf it's so wonderful, why hasn't it happened yet?
- thelastuser 13y agoBecause not enough people are wonderful.
- 1_player 13y agoThat's an interesting argument there. In my opinion, private law system is pretty much anarchism, since people tend to aggregate with similarly-minded people that share the same values and rules: rules and leadership tend to form spontaneously in human groups (since we actually are tribal animals). I have the gut feeling that as we eliminate scarcity through technology a real anarchist system is possible. I just miss enough theory to back it up. Does anyone know any good book/author talking about that?
- icebraining 13y agoNot serious theory, but James P. Hogan's Voyage from Yesteryear is based on the creation of a new post-scarcity anarchist society, and the meeting between it and the "old society". Spoiler: it's not all hugs and singing Kumbaya. It's certainly a compelling vision - at least to me - but it's not exactly a political treaty.