5 ms·

"I sincerely hope that modern nations will instead adopt scientific research as their guiding principle, and structure society around the continuous quest for k

"I sincerely hope that modern nations will instead adopt scientific research as their guiding principle, and structure society around the continuous quest for knowledge." So, in other words, Marxism. Imagine a society in which the state doesn't feel the urge to "structure society" at all...

FD3SA 13y ago
> Imagine a society in which the state doesn't feel the urge to "structure society" at all... Sounds great! So, who is going to build the roads, schools, hospitals, water sanitation, power plants, transportation, and ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest? Who is going to decide whether you can hire private armies to enforce your will or not? Who is going to make sure that those with power are held accountable to those without? Please share your thoughts.
- Lambdanaut 13y ago
  Everything you listed already exists in the private sector. (Private roads, schools, hospitals, power plants, buses, and water sanitation). They do quite well for themselves. As for crime control(such as hiring a violent army, or shoplifting), companies could form unions that will turn down the business of "convicted" criminals. If you steal from a Walmart and you get caught by their union, then Walmart and every other retailer in that union isn't going to sell to you in the future. It's against the personal interests of a company to hire their own private army.
  - Retric 13y ago
    Looks like you skipped over his argument ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest. Look at the history of coal mining, the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people. That's what unfettered capitalism leads to and most people don't want it.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      "the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people." Sounds pretty tame to the actions of the US state, doesn't it?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        No, it doesn't, if you actually look at the history (though to be fair, the state was sometimes complicit back then as well).
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        I'm looking at the history... Do not any US corporations doing anything near as bad as enslaving tens of thousands of Americans - then sending them off to die in muddy European trenches.
    - Turing_Machine 13y ago
      Marxist states have killed a hundred million people and counting.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - patrickambron 13y ago
    I like imagining the other end of this. Walmart notices guy starting to gain some traction with a competitor. They use their private army to "convict" him and hold him prisoner. Which private army fights to get him free?
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements: to use certain courts or arbitrators, and for the rulings reached by said parties to be enforceable by certain armed groups. Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand. And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.
      - patrickambron 13y ago
        That sounds exactly like a government to me
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Can't recall a government ever asking my opinion which court I use. Nor the ability to opt out entirely.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements Agree with who exactly about those requirements? The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction. I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it? Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it. Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.
rayiner 13y ago
The minute you take away the natural freedom of the big strong man to beat the nerd to death and take all his stuff, you're "structuring" society. After that, you're just arguing about what sort of structure you prefer. As one of those nerds, I'm happy for the state to structure society in a way where my ability to do things with my brain matters than my ability to fight or lead people in fighting. But its foolish to believe that this structure is the natural order of things.
- hrkristian 13y ago
  >The minute you take away the natural freedom of the big strong man to beat the nerd to death and take all his stuff, you're "structuring" society. After that, you're just arguing about what sort of structure you prefer. Wisest words I've read so far on HN.
  - jchrisa 13y ago
    I also liked this from upthread: "wasteful economic practices which tend to be zero or negative sum when all externalities are accounted for."
  - shasta 13y ago
    Wow, you must be super wise to even know that.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    You must not find a lot of wisdom on here.
maxerickson 13y ago
This sounds like snark but I'm being honest, I imagine large groups of people working to structure societies.
yk 13y ago
Marxism is a society where there is no state, so it will not structure society. Lenin on the topic: It was solely against this kind of “abolition” of the state that Marx fought in refuting the anarchists! He did not at all oppose the view that the state would disappear when classes disappeared, or that it would be abolished when classes were abolished. What he did oppose was the proposition that the workers should renounce the use of arms, organized violence, that is, the state, which is to serve to "crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie". Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Lenin's not exactly a reliable source where it comes to describing Marx (in much the same way that the ocean is not exactly free of water), since he was trying to sell a program radically divergent from Marx's under the banner of Marxism.
  - yk 13y ago
    Actually I like to quote Lenin on this precisely because he is a vanguardist. So the argument is essentially, that even the driest ocean is still pretty wet.
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  And yet somehow this utopia never arrives. Instead, it always turns to this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
What is this mysterious external force "the state" which you speak off? We, humans, feel an almost primal need to structure everything around us, not just those of us who suffer from OCD. Your imaginary libertarian/anarchistic society is about as realistic as pure Marxism. It denies human nature.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Funny thing. In a free nation, people would be able to organize a Marxist sub society, yes?

FD3SA 13y ago

> Imagine a society in which the state doesn't feel the urge to "structure society" at all... Sounds great! So, who is going to build the roads, schools, hospitals, water sanitation, power plants, transportation, and ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest? Who is going to decide whether you can hire private armies to enforce your will or not? Who is going to make sure that those with power are held accountable to those without? Please share your thoughts.

Lambdanaut 13y ago
Everything you listed already exists in the private sector. (Private roads, schools, hospitals, power plants, buses, and water sanitation). They do quite well for themselves. As for crime control(such as hiring a violent army, or shoplifting), companies could form unions that will turn down the business of "convicted" criminals. If you steal from a Walmart and you get caught by their union, then Walmart and every other retailer in that union isn't going to sell to you in the future. It's against the personal interests of a company to hire their own private army.
- Retric 13y ago
  Looks like you skipped over his argument ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest. Look at the history of coal mining, the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people. That's what unfettered capitalism leads to and most people don't want it.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    "the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people." Sounds pretty tame to the actions of the US state, doesn't it?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      No, it doesn't, if you actually look at the history (though to be fair, the state was sometimes complicit back then as well).
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        I'm looking at the history... Do not any US corporations doing anything near as bad as enslaving tens of thousands of Americans - then sending them off to die in muddy European trenches.
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago
    Marxist states have killed a hundred million people and counting.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- patrickambron 13y ago
  I like imagining the other end of this. Walmart notices guy starting to gain some traction with a competitor. They use their private army to "convict" him and hold him prisoner. Which private army fights to get him free?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements: to use certain courts or arbitrators, and for the rulings reached by said parties to be enforceable by certain armed groups. Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand. And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.
    - patrickambron 13y ago
      That sounds exactly like a government to me
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Can't recall a government ever asking my opinion which court I use. Nor the ability to opt out entirely.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements Agree with who exactly about those requirements? The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction. I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it? Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it. Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.

rayiner 13y ago

The minute you take away the natural freedom of the big strong man to beat the nerd to death and take all his stuff, you're "structuring" society. After that, you're just arguing about what sort of structure you prefer. As one of those nerds, I'm happy for the state to structure society in a way where my ability to do things with my brain matters than my ability to fight or lead people in fighting. But its foolish to believe that this structure is the natural order of things.

hrkristian 13y ago
>The minute you take away the natural freedom of the big strong man to beat the nerd to death and take all his stuff, you're "structuring" society. After that, you're just arguing about what sort of structure you prefer. Wisest words I've read so far on HN.
- jchrisa 13y ago
  I also liked this from upthread: "wasteful economic practices which tend to be zero or negative sum when all externalities are accounted for."
- shasta 13y ago
  Wow, you must be super wise to even know that.
- Dewie 13y ago
  You must not find a lot of wisdom on here.

maxerickson 13y ago

This sounds like snark but I'm being honest, I imagine large groups of people working to structure societies.

yk 13y ago

Marxism is a society where there is no state, so it will not structure society. Lenin on the topic: It was solely against this kind of “abolition” of the state that Marx fought in refuting the anarchists! He did not at all oppose the view that the state would disappear when classes disappeared, or that it would be abolished when classes were abolished. What he did oppose was the proposition that the workers should renounce the use of arms, organized violence, that is, the state, which is to serve to "crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie". Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch...

dragonwriter 13y ago
Lenin's not exactly a reliable source where it comes to describing Marx (in much the same way that the ocean is not exactly free of water), since he was trying to sell a program radically divergent from Marx's under the banner of Marxism.
- yk 13y ago
  Actually I like to quote Lenin on this precisely because he is a vanguardist. So the argument is essentially, that even the driest ocean is still pretty wet.
Turing_Machine 13y ago
And yet somehow this utopia never arrives. Instead, it always turns to this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

What is this mysterious external force "the state" which you speak off? We, humans, feel an almost primal need to structure everything around us, not just those of us who suffer from OCD. Your imaginary libertarian/anarchistic society is about as realistic as pure Marxism. It denies human nature.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Funny thing. In a free nation, people would be able to organize a Marxist sub society, yes?