6 ms·

Since 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. Wou

Since 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?

RKoutnik 13y ago
As they get older, they accumulate stuff and realize the government's job in protecting said stuff. It's easy to be an idealist (in any direction) when you don't have to sacrifice anything for it.
Houshalter 13y ago
I was an anarcho-capitalist for awhile. I thought it was the perfect system. There would be absolutely no incentives to do bad things. Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so. But I no longer think it's a perfect system. People don't behave like perfect rational market actors, there are edge cases like natural monopolies where normal market mechanisms don't lead to the best outcome, and then there is just enforcing altruism (like looking out for animal rights or children's rights, who couldn't buy legal services under this system, or redistributing income so you don't end up with people starving to death or in poverty.) Of course the current system we have is so far from a perfect system it makes these problems seem trivial. But at least it seems ok and generally stable, whereas what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world is a complete unknown. There still might be a near-perfect system. Robin Hanson's ideas on prediction markets for making policy decisions might be a huge improvement, at least in some areas, and a semi-private legal system for some things might work. And I think libertarian policies in general are better.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so. And we call that system a government. Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government. Either anarchy has never happened or it's the only thing that happens. I don't know which is more damaging to the case of doctrinaire capital-A Anarchists. > a semi-private legal system for some things might work This is called contract law.
  - 1_player 13y ago
    > Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government. Which are these "things which have to be done" that only a government could take care of? Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. One thing is for sure, we're not ready yet for anything like that, since many necessary services and resources are "scarse", and scarsity makes people fight for their survival with brutal results. But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.
    - mrow84 13y ago
      > Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Sure, criminals would be punished, but in a much more arbitrary manner. Do you really think that would be an improvement? > Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. Yes they would, but as people get richer they start to want there to be standards, at which point you need some kind of group to codify and enforce those standards. Over time, these thousands of different groups that are setting rules for their own little domains end up being grouped together, for a range of reasons, and then you have a dreaded 'government'. Formality offers protection. In all the cases I can think of, weaker government corresponds to an increase in either the arbitrariness or the corruption of justice. This applies both to criminal justice and to the wider sense of an equitable (not equal) distribution of resources.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? Both. > I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Without any state-established law there would be no criminals, just the much broader category of people that other people don't like. Quite arguably, the whole purpose of state-established law is to limit the scope and severity of punishment compared to what happens in the absence of central authority, and to provide clear rules. This aids in deterrence, since, to the extent that antisocial behavior is rational and deterrable, there needs not merely be an expectation of punishment if you do 'wrong', but a clear idea of what 'wrong' is in the context, and a clear expectation that punishment will not be imposed if you do not do 'wrong'. Certainly, one can argue that modern states are less than ideal in each aspect of this, but that's very different than arguing that they are worse than the absence of a state would be. > Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. The problem here isn't that there would be no medical practitioners apart from a mandate to provide them (after all, most states that provide medical services don't compel people to become doctors and nurses), but that medical services lack features that make it the kind of service modeled well by econ 101 rational choice assumptions, with (among other things) a very high and uncorrectable cost of bad (or even merely incompetent) suppliers. > But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology. We may be reducing the resource costs of some goods and services, but that doesn't solve scarcity (it reduces the opportunity cost of some while increasing the opportunity cost of others, since it is unequal progress, and opportunity cost is what else you could have gotten for the resources you put into getting what you chose.) Suggesting that we are "solving scarcity" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "scarcity" means.
TausAmmer 13y ago
At some point in your life you have your guitar, backpack and whatever you have on you. You have no attachments, nothing to loose, nothing to fight for. You can think freely, you have no need to lie and pretend. You can express your emotions without filters. And you build your world on that, you see world might work well like that. Then you get your job, car, house, 2 saplings, wife. You have to defend it, system that supports it and everything that holds it together. Current system is very well alive, self replicating and with strong immunity, it is living intelligent being, completely different from human thinking and not really communicable in direct way. It all is very interesting.

RKoutnik 13y ago

As they get older, they accumulate stuff and realize the government's job in protecting said stuff. It's easy to be an idealist (in any direction) when you don't have to sacrifice anything for it.

Houshalter 13y ago

I was an anarcho-capitalist for awhile. I thought it was the perfect system. There would be absolutely no incentives to do bad things. Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so. But I no longer think it's a perfect system. People don't behave like perfect rational market actors, there are edge cases like natural monopolies where normal market mechanisms don't lead to the best outcome, and then there is just enforcing altruism (like looking out for animal rights or children's rights, who couldn't buy legal services under this system, or redistributing income so you don't end up with people starving to death or in poverty.) Of course the current system we have is so far from a perfect system it makes these problems seem trivial. But at least it seems ok and generally stable, whereas what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world is a complete unknown. There still might be a near-perfect system. Robin Hanson's ideas on prediction markets for making policy decisions might be a huge improvement, at least in some areas, and a semi-private legal system for some things might work. And I think libertarian policies in general are better.

derleth 13y ago
> Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so. And we call that system a government. Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government. Either anarchy has never happened or it's the only thing that happens. I don't know which is more damaging to the case of doctrinaire capital-A Anarchists. > a semi-private legal system for some things might work This is called contract law.
- 1_player 13y ago
  > Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government. Which are these "things which have to be done" that only a government could take care of? Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. One thing is for sure, we're not ready yet for anything like that, since many necessary services and resources are "scarse", and scarsity makes people fight for their survival with brutal results. But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.
  - mrow84 13y ago
    > Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Sure, criminals would be punished, but in a much more arbitrary manner. Do you really think that would be an improvement? > Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. Yes they would, but as people get richer they start to want there to be standards, at which point you need some kind of group to codify and enforce those standards. Over time, these thousands of different groups that are setting rules for their own little domains end up being grouped together, for a range of reasons, and then you have a dreaded 'government'. Formality offers protection. In all the cases I can think of, weaker government corresponds to an increase in either the arbitrariness or the corruption of justice. This applies both to criminal justice and to the wider sense of an equitable (not equal) distribution of resources.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? Both. > I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another. Without any state-established law there would be no criminals, just the much broader category of people that other people don't like. Quite arguably, the whole purpose of state-established law is to limit the scope and severity of punishment compared to what happens in the absence of central authority, and to provide clear rules. This aids in deterrence, since, to the extent that antisocial behavior is rational and deterrable, there needs not merely be an expectation of punishment if you do 'wrong', but a clear idea of what 'wrong' is in the context, and a clear expectation that punishment will not be imposed if you do not do 'wrong'. Certainly, one can argue that modern states are less than ideal in each aspect of this, but that's very different than arguing that they are worse than the absence of a state would be. > Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization. The problem here isn't that there would be no medical practitioners apart from a mandate to provide them (after all, most states that provide medical services don't compel people to become doctors and nurses), but that medical services lack features that make it the kind of service modeled well by econ 101 rational choice assumptions, with (among other things) a very high and uncorrectable cost of bad (or even merely incompetent) suppliers. > But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology. We may be reducing the resource costs of some goods and services, but that doesn't solve scarcity (it reduces the opportunity cost of some while increasing the opportunity cost of others, since it is unequal progress, and opportunity cost is what else you could have gotten for the resources you put into getting what you chose.) Suggesting that we are "solving scarcity" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "scarcity" means.

TausAmmer 13y ago

At some point in your life you have your guitar, backpack and whatever you have on you. You have no attachments, nothing to loose, nothing to fight for. You can think freely, you have no need to lie and pretend. You can express your emotions without filters. And you build your world on that, you see world might work well like that. Then you get your job, car, house, 2 saplings, wife. You have to defend it, system that supports it and everything that holds it together. Current system is very well alive, self replicating and with strong immunity, it is living intelligent being, completely different from human thinking and not really communicable in direct way. It all is very interesting.