4 ms·

Robert Tucker, Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc. all give us a clear idea as to how and why anarchism MUST work. Governments (where before religions, but at a moral lev

Robert Tucker, Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc. all give us a clear idea as to how and why anarchism MUST work. Governments (where before religions, but at a moral level, religions still do) exist as a function of hegemonic markets (corporations) such that governments limit the powers of liberty of individuals through the frameworks of blind justice (corporations are just like us). This is not new. Corporations are not just like us. What do economic categories have to do with the rightness or wrongness of action? What does economic stratification have to do with the limits of human freedom? If our autonomy is limited, we do not need an Indexed Dollar to inform us of this; the market will tell us all by itself. Just like as J.S. Mill argued in terms of Women's Suffrage — Why do we need a government to legislate what Women can or cannot do when Nature will determine this all on her own? Why do we need a Government to legislate what we are economically capable of or not? (We don't.)

mynameishere 13y ago
Why do we need a government to legislate what Women can or cannot do when Nature will determine this all on her own? What an odd think to say. It's the nature of humans to form government, and the most natural one is despotism. Shut down the macro-governments we have now and you'll have millions of micro-tyrannies overnight. And the role of woman there would be about that of a slave. Similar stuff about god giving "inalienable rights" is rhetorical hocus-pocus.
- snitko 13y ago
  That is not the nature of humans. That's the nature of some humans to rule and enslave others. Some people just want to be left alone - I would argue that most people want that. Then a group of thugs comes over, sets us fighting against each other, calls it a democracy and feeds off our labour. I wasn't asked to sign any kind of contract with any government, I was never asked if I want to pay taxes to finance things I actually despise. If you believe our society ought to be humane - help the poor, provide for elderly etc. - then convince me to give you money voluntarily and convince me you can do a good job of helping the poor (and keep convincing me all the while I'm paying you). Governments pretend you have a vote that makes a difference, then they just rob you indefinitely.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > Governments pretend you have a vote that makes a difference, then they just rob you indefinitely. You know, I'm willing to bet a lot of Republican congressmen feel this way.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  Really? Just straight to "micro-tyrannies"? I'm just going to throw this out that this is an unscientific claim, and it's a matter of opinion. I think it's sensationalist gun-jumping, and does not take into consideration the actual economics at play (at least in the U.S.). Nor does it take us hackers as a serious economic force into consideration. 1. The Urban Archipelago: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 Nor does it take into consideration that the political compass is vastly more complicated than is popularized in the mainstream political theatre. 2. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm I don't have anything constructive to respond with in terms of "where women would fit in" given than your claim amounts to a biased post-apocalyptic scenario to begin with. (Also unscientific.) Your abstractions I do not think are doing the work you want them to. The U.S. isn't some "macro-government" that can be thrown into the pot of all other "macro-governments." It's the U.S., and it's considerably unprecedented.
  - JimboOmega 13y ago
    That Urban Archipelago is interesting in the way it's a sign of the times - from 10 years ago. After Bush got elected, the "blue" folks felt besieged, and there was talk of a republican government forcing its backwards ways on the world. The republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. Times are quite a bit different now; republicans control only the house, although the Tea party has radicalized them. I still don't know what that has to do with anarchy, though. The mere idea of anarchy is itself inherently sensationalist - it's something that wouldn't happen without an apocalypse. It's also something that we can never evaluate "Scientifically" - we're not going to just disband a government and see what happens in the aftermath.
  - sp332 13y ago
    When Jeri Ellsworth left Valve, she said there is a de facto hierarchy in Valve even though they claim to be "flat". Plenty of discussion about the effect from when that happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182 You should look further than the USA for examples. "Power vacuums" attract people who want power. When a warlard gets killed in an area with no effective government, another one steps in.

mynameishere 13y ago

Why do we need a government to legislate what Women can or cannot do when Nature will determine this all on her own? What an odd think to say. It's the nature of humans to form government, and the most natural one is despotism. Shut down the macro-governments we have now and you'll have millions of micro-tyrannies overnight. And the role of woman there would be about that of a slave. Similar stuff about god giving "inalienable rights" is rhetorical hocus-pocus.

snitko 13y ago
That is not the nature of humans. That's the nature of some humans to rule and enslave others. Some people just want to be left alone - I would argue that most people want that. Then a group of thugs comes over, sets us fighting against each other, calls it a democracy and feeds off our labour. I wasn't asked to sign any kind of contract with any government, I was never asked if I want to pay taxes to finance things I actually despise. If you believe our society ought to be humane - help the poor, provide for elderly etc. - then convince me to give you money voluntarily and convince me you can do a good job of helping the poor (and keep convincing me all the while I'm paying you). Governments pretend you have a vote that makes a difference, then they just rob you indefinitely.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Governments pretend you have a vote that makes a difference, then they just rob you indefinitely. You know, I'm willing to bet a lot of Republican congressmen feel this way.
thenerdfiles 13y ago
Really? Just straight to "micro-tyrannies"? I'm just going to throw this out that this is an unscientific claim, and it's a matter of opinion. I think it's sensationalist gun-jumping, and does not take into consideration the actual economics at play (at least in the U.S.). Nor does it take us hackers as a serious economic force into consideration. 1. The Urban Archipelago: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813 Nor does it take into consideration that the political compass is vastly more complicated than is popularized in the mainstream political theatre. 2. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm I don't have anything constructive to respond with in terms of "where women would fit in" given than your claim amounts to a biased post-apocalyptic scenario to begin with. (Also unscientific.) Your abstractions I do not think are doing the work you want them to. The U.S. isn't some "macro-government" that can be thrown into the pot of all other "macro-governments." It's the U.S., and it's considerably unprecedented.
- JimboOmega 13y ago
  That Urban Archipelago is interesting in the way it's a sign of the times - from 10 years ago. After Bush got elected, the "blue" folks felt besieged, and there was talk of a republican government forcing its backwards ways on the world. The republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. Times are quite a bit different now; republicans control only the house, although the Tea party has radicalized them. I still don't know what that has to do with anarchy, though. The mere idea of anarchy is itself inherently sensationalist - it's something that wouldn't happen without an apocalypse. It's also something that we can never evaluate "Scientifically" - we're not going to just disband a government and see what happens in the aftermath.
- sp332 13y ago
  When Jeri Ellsworth left Valve, she said there is a de facto hierarchy in Valve even though they claim to be "flat". Plenty of discussion about the effect from when that happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6015182 You should look further than the USA for examples. "Power vacuums" attract people who want power. When a warlard gets killed in an area with no effective government, another one steps in.