4 ms·

Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power

by snitko 13y ago

Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power vacuums and people don't want to be ruled by anyone? Is there anything to be filled then? What I personally consider to be naive is the idea that governance is inevitable, but that's no logical argument against government, so I don't go around saying it.

nhaehnle 13y ago
Anarchism very explicitly calls for a power vacuum to be created. That's actually what the word means. Now, I can easily believe that a majority of people wouldn't want to be ruled by anyone, but what do you do about the minority who want to rule over the rest? Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow. Somebody will be in a role of organizing the defense of society against those who would seek to rule over it. But now it sounds as if that somebody (or somebodies) are in a pretty powerful position, no? This is why so many anarchists are so counter-productive. Of course the basic notions of allowing personal liberty and to be baseline-skeptical against authority are good. The thing is, you won't actually achieve personal liberty by just getting rid of any sort of government-like thing. It would be more productive to discuss what kind of government is best suited to protect personal personal liberty. Note that none of this is a defense of governments as they exist today. It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors. Or, in comic form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic
- snitko 13y ago
  > It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors Precisely. This is why I'm no fan of revolutions. > Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow If I hire a protection/defense agency to guard against those who wish to rule me, this agency only has a very limited amount of money and power. It cannot tax me indefinitely and it cannot print money. If I suspect it does something wrong with my money, I go to a competitor - and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job. Now, as I mentioned, this is only possible if people understand there need not be any force ruling them. If people think that they just need better rulers (like, I guess, they do in Ukraine, and like they do in Russia) then they are doomed to be enslaved by their rulers without regard for their interests. Thus, I agree with you that the vacuum has to be filled if it exists (if people believe they need a ruler), but if it doesn't exist then nothing can fill it. That's why I said the problem is in the people's minds, the problem is that they believe they need a better government.
  - Noxchi 13y ago
    First of all, you need to explain what your "Defense agency" does. Actual defense is almost impossible if you want any mobility. Even US presidents get shot by determined citizens. If someone is willing to give their life to kill someone else, it can be done. With current technology, real defense is absurdly expense and still not effective. So the way society currently works is on a system of retribution. You basically have a big paddle, and you whack people who get out of societal norms. You rely on people's (usually) occurring desire to not hurt themselves without enough reward to maintain a reasonable level of order. So your "Defense agency", are you basically paying them to avenge you in case someone does you wrong? This has actually existed for thousands of years, it is known as "blood feuds" (except your family members do the avenging instead of a hired party). What it leads to is different families killing one another for generations, some have lasted for multiple hundreds of years. OK, but now in your system, it isn't families killing eachother but hired guns. Lets say now instead of 1 big paddle (the gubment), you now have 5 smaller paddles. Human nature will have it that each of the owners of those paddles will threaten some people (usually where he lives) to give him money or else he will whack you. Now you don't freedom of choice. If you think you can funnel some more money to a different paddle to save you, that may work... until now that paddle is the biggest of the bunch and he controls your area as well. Human nature will... (look into what warlords are, read some history on the 1000-1500 years in Europe, Central Asia, Asia) Listen buddy, humanity started with anarchism. What we have now for government is at least close to the best that we ever had before. If other forms of human cooperation were better, then they would have survived. Human cooperation is a survival of the fittest, and currently in the world, people strive for western ideals. That means democracy, capitalism with a bit of socialism, is the best we have (and have had) so far.
  - arg01 13y ago
    "and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job" See this is the bit I don't understand, my understanding of market forces is that those that do the job better will grow if they are in anyway scalable. Now your in a position were small protection rings are unable to work against there large competitors. Similar to how you say you can't compete against government in the supply of defense of sovereignty these small firms can't compete against the large firms in defense of law. So now you have a system were you have these large protection firms consolidating absorbing any small upstarts and focusing on specific territories (to become more efficient). Soon you've carved up the protection by geographic region and these companies have carte blanche in their own regions with a few places having oligopolies. Now these groups were obviously very friendly during this time and obviously never abused their position because the market is good at incorporating moral values into the cost of what they buy... but you would have to admit that as they are now acting as the sole provider in a specific location then it makes sense for them to extort that region at an amount that is lower than the cost of leaving for those extorted.

by snitko 13y ago

nhaehnle 13y ago

Anarchism very explicitly calls for a power vacuum to be created. That's actually what the word means. Now, I can easily believe that a majority of people wouldn't want to be ruled by anyone, but what do you do about the minority who want to rule over the rest? Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow. Somebody will be in a role of organizing the defense of society against those who would seek to rule over it. But now it sounds as if that somebody (or somebodies) are in a pretty powerful position, no? This is why so many anarchists are so counter-productive. Of course the basic notions of allowing personal liberty and to be baseline-skeptical against authority are good. The thing is, you won't actually achieve personal liberty by just getting rid of any sort of government-like thing. It would be more productive to discuss what kind of government is best suited to protect personal personal liberty. Note that none of this is a defense of governments as they exist today. It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors. Or, in comic form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic

snitko 13y ago
> It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors Precisely. This is why I'm no fan of revolutions. > Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow If I hire a protection/defense agency to guard against those who wish to rule me, this agency only has a very limited amount of money and power. It cannot tax me indefinitely and it cannot print money. If I suspect it does something wrong with my money, I go to a competitor - and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job. Now, as I mentioned, this is only possible if people understand there need not be any force ruling them. If people think that they just need better rulers (like, I guess, they do in Ukraine, and like they do in Russia) then they are doomed to be enslaved by their rulers without regard for their interests. Thus, I agree with you that the vacuum has to be filled if it exists (if people believe they need a ruler), but if it doesn't exist then nothing can fill it. That's why I said the problem is in the people's minds, the problem is that they believe they need a better government.
- Noxchi 13y ago
  First of all, you need to explain what your "Defense agency" does. Actual defense is almost impossible if you want any mobility. Even US presidents get shot by determined citizens. If someone is willing to give their life to kill someone else, it can be done. With current technology, real defense is absurdly expense and still not effective. So the way society currently works is on a system of retribution. You basically have a big paddle, and you whack people who get out of societal norms. You rely on people's (usually) occurring desire to not hurt themselves without enough reward to maintain a reasonable level of order. So your "Defense agency", are you basically paying them to avenge you in case someone does you wrong? This has actually existed for thousands of years, it is known as "blood feuds" (except your family members do the avenging instead of a hired party). What it leads to is different families killing one another for generations, some have lasted for multiple hundreds of years. OK, but now in your system, it isn't families killing eachother but hired guns. Lets say now instead of 1 big paddle (the gubment), you now have 5 smaller paddles. Human nature will have it that each of the owners of those paddles will threaten some people (usually where he lives) to give him money or else he will whack you. Now you don't freedom of choice. If you think you can funnel some more money to a different paddle to save you, that may work... until now that paddle is the biggest of the bunch and he controls your area as well. Human nature will... (look into what warlords are, read some history on the 1000-1500 years in Europe, Central Asia, Asia) Listen buddy, humanity started with anarchism. What we have now for government is at least close to the best that we ever had before. If other forms of human cooperation were better, then they would have survived. Human cooperation is a survival of the fittest, and currently in the world, people strive for western ideals. That means democracy, capitalism with a bit of socialism, is the best we have (and have had) so far.
- arg01 13y ago
  "and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job" See this is the bit I don't understand, my understanding of market forces is that those that do the job better will grow if they are in anyway scalable. Now your in a position were small protection rings are unable to work against there large competitors. Similar to how you say you can't compete against government in the supply of defense of sovereignty these small firms can't compete against the large firms in defense of law. So now you have a system were you have these large protection firms consolidating absorbing any small upstarts and focusing on specific territories (to become more efficient). Soon you've carved up the protection by geographic region and these companies have carte blanche in their own regions with a few places having oligopolies. Now these groups were obviously very friendly during this time and obviously never abused their position because the market is good at incorporating moral values into the cost of what they buy... but you would have to admit that as they are now acting as the sole provider in a specific location then it makes sense for them to extort that region at an amount that is lower than the cost of leaving for those extorted.