5 ms·

Yes, a good piece of regulation, but who believes in no regulation? To me, no regulation means no law, which means anarchy. And the only people who want anarc

by poof131 12y ago

Yes, a good piece of regulation, but who believes in no regulation? To me, no regulation means no law, which means anarchy. And the only people who want anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke out. But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation for the people, not for the companies. Moving in the right direction is a challenge and we need to break down the illusion that half the population is for good (those on our voting team) and the other half for bad.

protonfish 12y ago
How ironic that the only way to get rid of objectivist libertarians is to give them what they want. Still, it is probably worth it.
kzrdude 12y ago
Anarchy doesn't really exist. It's just that people want to go back to a state before the current contracts and laws were passed. What would happen? The same kinds of associations, rules, and laws would form again.
- coriny 12y ago
  Anarcho-collectivists, which as far as I understand, represents the dominant modern anarchistic philosophy, examine alternative methods to central government for generating laws. So they don't argue for an unregulated society - which is obviously a non-starter under the lens of reality - or a return to pre-government, but rather a complete replacement of the law-making mechanism. Basically, they're all over complexity theory and how to use strong local interactions to develop self-organising non-local societies. Which I personally think makes anarcho-collectivism possibly the most sophisticated and futuristic of current political models. They were two decades ahead of the "localism" and "direct democracy" ideologies, and with a far better understanding of the maths.
  - voronoff 12y ago
    Do you have any links to writings on this (Anarcho-collectivism from a complexity perspective or vice-versa)? Did both a quick journal search and a Google search and didn't find much.
    - coriny 12y ago
      Sorry for the very late reply, I've been hoping I'd get some time to do this properly, but haven't succeeded. It's something I first read ~10 years ago, where it was mostly in the musings of a complexity theorist. Since then odd things have cropped up which have supported that narrative in my mind, but I haven't got a particularly convincing collection to work with. There's some leads in here though: http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/documents/Anarchism%20and%20World%20Politics/CudHob.pdf http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/documents/Anarch....
  - jlangenauer 12y ago
    Yes, as someone who's interested in this, I'd love to read any links or papers about this aspect of it.
    - coriny 12y ago
      Apologies for my poor stab at answering this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8273839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8273839
- baddox 12y ago
  All self-proclaimed anarchists I am aware of oppose the state, but do not oppose associations, rules, or laws.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    The point is that "the state" will just come back. You can't get rid of it permanently.
protonfish 12y ago
So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your second. There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything, and plenty to make us think it would make things way worse. Two parties that are friendly and cozy with each other are equivalent to a single party. That will leave US voters with no real choice at the ballot box, and remove the only real repercussion to a politician - the fear that their opponent will take them to task during the next election. Partisan politics is the most powerful tool we have to preventing politicians from running rampant with power. Heaven help us if they ever unite against their common enemy - the people.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Not really. Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Lots of parties have friendly relations without society collapsing. Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Ask a professional diplomat whether this idea is true. Israelis and Palestinians achieve compromises all the time -- they're fragile and short-lived, but they're certainly compromises. Unions and management come to compromises regularly, after sometimes bloody demonstrations (in the early days of the organized labor movement). In a now-famous story from 1943 Berlin, a group of wives of Jewish men protested and demonstrated against the regime's plan to round up and exterminate their husbands. Because the demonstration took place in Berlin, because of its size and international visibility, and because the wives were not themselves Jewish, the Nazis reached a compromise -- the men were released. Reference: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-release-their-jewish-husbands-rosenstrasse-protest-1943 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-re... Quote: "As the women continued to protest at Rosenstrasse into March 6, the German leadership finally gave in, even as 25 of the intermarried Jews were being deported to Auschwitz. The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Goebbels released the remaining intermarried Jews in an attempt to maintain the visage of conformity in Berlin. The protests of Aryan women against the internment of their Jewish husbands had shown open dissent to the Nazi program and for Goebbels (with Hitler’s approval), it was more important to eliminate this dissent by releasing those Jews than to allow such dissent to be visible to other Germans or international bodies. Thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned. While twenty-five of the detainees were not released, thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned to Berlin." > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise ... In reality, this is proven false every day. > Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric. Your ignorance of both current events and history is embarrassing.
JonnieCache 12y ago
>And the only people who want anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke out. This is an amusing statement. What kind of people are you referring to here? Keyboard-warrior lolbertarians, randroids etc? Surely not the black bloc types and their various dog-on-a-string, squat-dwelling, convoy-travelling chums? I would have thought they'd be better equipped than most for a mad max style dystopia...
zo1 12y ago
"But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation for the people, not for the companies." I'll just go ahead and leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
baddox 12y ago
Replace "anarchy" with "self-organization" or "decentralized governance" to make it sound a lot less scary. I've just started a pop econ book on this topic (after watching the author's video) that seems interesting so far. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambridge-Economics-ebook/dp/B00JXII4Q2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409074892&sr=8-1&keywords=anarchy+unbound http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambri... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7K-0ohtb4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7K-0ohtb4Y

by poof131 12y ago

protonfish 12y ago

How ironic that the only way to get rid of objectivist libertarians is to give them what they want. Still, it is probably worth it.

kzrdude 12y ago

Anarchy doesn't really exist. It's just that people want to go back to a state before the current contracts and laws were passed. What would happen? The same kinds of associations, rules, and laws would form again.

coriny 12y ago
Anarcho-collectivists, which as far as I understand, represents the dominant modern anarchistic philosophy, examine alternative methods to central government for generating laws. So they don't argue for an unregulated society - which is obviously a non-starter under the lens of reality - or a return to pre-government, but rather a complete replacement of the law-making mechanism. Basically, they're all over complexity theory and how to use strong local interactions to develop self-organising non-local societies. Which I personally think makes anarcho-collectivism possibly the most sophisticated and futuristic of current political models. They were two decades ahead of the "localism" and "direct democracy" ideologies, and with a far better understanding of the maths.
- voronoff 12y ago
  Do you have any links to writings on this (Anarcho-collectivism from a complexity perspective or vice-versa)? Did both a quick journal search and a Google search and didn't find much.
  - coriny 12y ago
    Sorry for the very late reply, I've been hoping I'd get some time to do this properly, but haven't succeeded. It's something I first read ~10 years ago, where it was mostly in the musings of a complexity theorist. Since then odd things have cropped up which have supported that narrative in my mind, but I haven't got a particularly convincing collection to work with. There's some leads in here though: http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/documents/Anarchism%20and%20World%20Politics/CudHob.pdf http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/documents/Anarch....
- jlangenauer 12y ago
  Yes, as someone who's interested in this, I'd love to read any links or papers about this aspect of it.
  - coriny 12y ago
    Apologies for my poor stab at answering this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8273839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8273839
baddox 12y ago
All self-proclaimed anarchists I am aware of oppose the state, but do not oppose associations, rules, or laws.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The point is that "the state" will just come back. You can't get rid of it permanently.

protonfish 12y ago

So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your second. There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything, and plenty to make us think it would make things way worse. Two parties that are friendly and cozy with each other are equivalent to a single party. That will leave US voters with no real choice at the ballot box, and remove the only real repercussion to a politician - the fear that their opponent will take them to task during the next election. Partisan politics is the most powerful tool we have to preventing politicians from running rampant with power. Heaven help us if they ever unite against their common enemy - the people.

tormeh 12y ago
Not really. Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Lots of parties have friendly relations without society collapsing. Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Ask a professional diplomat whether this idea is true. Israelis and Palestinians achieve compromises all the time -- they're fragile and short-lived, but they're certainly compromises. Unions and management come to compromises regularly, after sometimes bloody demonstrations (in the early days of the organized labor movement). In a now-famous story from 1943 Berlin, a group of wives of Jewish men protested and demonstrated against the regime's plan to round up and exterminate their husbands. Because the demonstration took place in Berlin, because of its size and international visibility, and because the wives were not themselves Jewish, the Nazis reached a compromise -- the men were released. Reference: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-release-their-jewish-husbands-rosenstrasse-protest-1943 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-re... Quote: "As the women continued to protest at Rosenstrasse into March 6, the German leadership finally gave in, even as 25 of the intermarried Jews were being deported to Auschwitz. The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Goebbels released the remaining intermarried Jews in an attempt to maintain the visage of conformity in Berlin. The protests of Aryan women against the internment of their Jewish husbands had shown open dissent to the Nazi program and for Goebbels (with Hitler’s approval), it was more important to eliminate this dissent by releasing those Jews than to allow such dissent to be visible to other Germans or international bodies. Thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned. While twenty-five of the detainees were not released, thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned to Berlin." > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise ... In reality, this is proven false every day. > Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric. Your ignorance of both current events and history is embarrassing.

JonnieCache 12y ago

>And the only people who want anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke out. This is an amusing statement. What kind of people are you referring to here? Keyboard-warrior lolbertarians, randroids etc? Surely not the black bloc types and their various dog-on-a-string, squat-dwelling, convoy-travelling chums? I would have thought they'd be better equipped than most for a mad max style dystopia...

zo1 12y ago

"But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation for the people, not for the companies." I'll just go ahead and leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

baddox 12y ago

Replace "anarchy" with "self-organization" or "decentralized governance" to make it sound a lot less scary. I've just started a pop econ book on this topic (after watching the author's video) that seems interesting so far. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambridge-Economics-ebook/dp/B00JXII4Q2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409074892&sr=8-1&keywords=anarchy+unbound http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambri... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7K-0ohtb4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7K-0ohtb4Y