The Politics Thread v2

[MrWolfe]

@MrWolfe: I'm very familiar with all (or at least most) of those, and I think they're pretty much bunk.  See, the problem is that in a truly anarchic society, is is chaos (Raineh...it really is).  Anything else is some sort of government that has established some set of rules.  It may look different, but it's still a government.  All of those real world "anarchic" societies have a set government.  They really do.  Anarchy is much like capitalism and communism, of the pure forms.  Sounds great in theory, really doesn't work in practice.  I'm not saying that freedom is a bad thing, far from it.  It's just that anarchy does not equal freedom.  Not any more than any other governmental system means freedom.  In fact, one could easily argue that in our current system we are more free than under anarchy in many ways.  I mean, the governments can provide aid and humanitarian help in ways anarchy never can.  And no, anarchy literally cannot, it's not something that "nature of human good" can just wish into existence.  If it weren't for governments, we would never have the internet.  It simply would never be created under anarchy.  You cannot assume in a world with an anarchic community (which by definition has a government) that everyone everywhere is following the same rules (hey, rules, government).  So what's to stop someone from taking over?  A government.  Governments protect from other governments.  This protection from other governments is becoming less important as time goes on and hopefully it won't be a thing anymore (although that will never happen because sentient beings are not perfect).  What's your recourse when something bad happens?  Don't count on the good nature of humans in a truly anarchic setting, you literally cannot.  there's a wealth of evidence that humans won't help in those types of situations.  Depending on the situation of course.  In general, humans are "good" but also in general they won't help in more dire situations that are not immediately threatening.  Essentially, the good from governments so much outweighs the bad it's not even a contest anymore.  Otherwise, there would be more successful truly anarchic communities out there.  The pseudo anarchic ones barely survive as it is.  In order to go to an real anarchic setting you would have to throw away pretty much all technology and go back to before we had tribes.  That's what you're looking at.

Dude, chill. No need to get all riled.

Now, you say you're familiar with the information I linked to, but your comments seem to indicate otherwise. It sounds like you're laboring under a lot of mistaken notions and are judging the merit of anarchism based on that. Go back and read the articles I linked to. Do some research. Hell, take a basic course in sociology. Or don't, it's entirely up to you. But don't expect someone who has done the research to take you seriously when you spout such hilariously inaccurate opinions.

For example:

• Anarchist societies do not have governments.
• They have been historically proven not only to be sustainable, but to have less violence and greater equality than modern systems of government, even in ancient times.
• Governments are not required for technological advancement or infrastructure.
• The U.S. is not a democracy, nor is it particularly free.
• Human attitudes and behavior are deeply affected by their environment, rather than being an inherent product of "human nature."

And how long do malevolent governments last?  And I mean outright malevolent.  Cartoonishly evil.  Although I agree with the statement, I will say that "evil governments" are more capable than anarchy at succeeding, meaning that they can be competitive on a global scale.  It's just that they don't last long due to internal pressures.

Well, the U.S. has maintained an empire built on slavery and oppression for the last 200+ years, so there's that. Apparently the trick is to go full-bore supervillain and use cult-like indoctrination tactics to convince your subjects that you're actually the freest and most benevolent system around. Doesn't seem to be fooling the rest of the world though.

And yes, evil does have an advantage in that it isn't hindered by all those pesky moral considerations that hamper efficiency. Of course, this only really benefits the people at the top. If you weigh that against the consequences to the rest of the population, tyrannical societies end up looking far worse overall.

You know given the size of our arsenal im surprised we dont use the corbomite defense.  "Attack us and we distribute the nuclear weapons evenly enough to ensure the entire world is cleansed of life."

We tried that back during the cold war. Eventually even the crazy idiots in office decided they weren't crazy and stupid enough to adhere to a policy that would get everyone--including themselves--killed. Playing chicken doesn't work outside of movies. 

[dman11235]

The US got rid of slavery over a hundred years ago, you know that right?  The US is far from an evil empire.  North Korea is the closest example to an evil government we have today.  And they're going to collapse sooner rather than later.  All of the evil empires of history haven't lasted for very long.  200 years is not a long time for a civilization/government.  And you'd be hard pressed to find one that was evil for its time lasting longer than that.

Also, you presume I didn't read the articles?  No, I didn't.  Mostly because I'm already familiar with the concepts and arguments presented in them.  I read similar articles, taken philosophy, etc. etc.  Your argument is a classic deflection, putting the onus on me instead of yourself.  If you bothered to read my post, I was specifically addressing things presented in those articles.  I laid out the logical progression of a system-less society, ending up with what is effectively a monarchy, and pointed out that all of those supposedly anarchic societies actually have some form of government.

"but what about the roads?"  Seriously?  You seriously think that people, all these people, are going to voluntarily just build and maintain infrastructure?  "oh, but it'll all be local" wat.  That's the argument?  That's a ridiculous argument.  Society succeed and moves forwards by connecting with other societies, sharing knowledge and technology.  It improves the quality of life and...why am I even arguing this point?  Not worth my time.  It's patently absurd to think that infrastructure can exist in a meaningful way in an anarchic society.  Who builds it?  Who maintains it?  No one would, that's who.  It's a pipe dream for libertarian philosophers, but it can never happen.

The violence argument conveniently ignores the fact that the time we are currently living in is the most peaceful period in history, ever.  Not per capita or any other statistical trick, just ever.  And signs point to a bigger government leading to a more peaceful time.  With more freedom as the governments get better at governing.  Not only that, the argument "there's bad things in government therefore government is bad" is really really bad.  "not everything is perfect therefore get rid of all of it".  That's the argument.  It's a terrible argument.

I feel this is the place where I say I do not respect any of those philosophers you're linking and stuff.  I really don't.  The biggest evidence, and only evidence I really need, that anarchy cannot work in a successful major way is that the world is not in an anarchic system.  The vast majority of major governments today are republics or democracies, and that number is growing as we go.  I prefer a republic like the US because I don't trust people to be in direct control, but I do want more people in direct control than the US's current system.  I absolutely do not want anarchy.  It's just a terrible idea that only works in theoretical philosophical scenarios that make insane assumptions that make no sense for real life situations.

[Raineh Daze]

People in this country have banded together to fund their own better internet service, as I recall. No state involvement.

[dman11235]

People in this country have banded together to fund their own better internet service, as I recall. No state involvement.

How are they running it?  Probably involving money.  And rules.  That's government....I mean, with that argument, ATT is running an anarchist internet company, they're a private corporation.  And there's rules that the government installed that reduced the corruption of telecoms.  I'm not as familiar with the British issues on this however.  But I do know that they are running a very successful healthcare operation....

[Raineh Daze]

People in this country have banded together to fund their own better internet service, as I recall. No state involvement.

How are they running it?  Probably involving money.  And rules.  That's government....I mean, with that argument, ATT is running an anarchist internet company, they're a private corporation.  And there's rules that the government installed that reduced the corruption of telecoms.  I'm not as familiar with the British issues on this however.  But I do know that they are running a very successful healthcare operation....

... one community, and I didn't mean they set up their own company.

[altpersona]

making slavery illegal and getting rid of it are different thing...

we (the US) only did one of those things. 

[dman11235]

True Alt.  However, without a government to make it illegal, it will be happening more readily.  because, you know, no consequences....

How are they getting the internet connected to the places outside their community?  How are they maintaining it?  There has to be some rules in place to govern the service.  Otherwise, it's not going to last.

[Raineh Daze]

You're... not actually making much of an argument. I give an example of infrastructure being created just because people decided to do it and you change tack and start going on about rules. Though the rule could just be the same one that lead to its creation 'help out because we want a non-shitty connetion'. As for the 'how', that's going to come down to technical details that have fuck all to do with the political side. >_>

[Solo]

I believe in anarchy-syndicalism, the union or syndicate representing road construction workers decides to do it, for the benefit of their comrades in other fields who need the roads to provide them with goods.

[dman11235]

They can only do that because of the system set in place by a government.  Their infrastructure only works because of the infrastructure set up by a government.  Who maintains that infrastructure though?  Someone has to.  Why are they doing it?  Betterment of Mankind?  Good luck!  It's not going to be successful outside of a small community.  And why is the local cable company letting them use their cables to connect to the world?  How are they connecting to places outside the community?

[Raineh Daze]

They can only do that because of the system set in place by a government.  Their infrastructure only works because of the infrastructure set up by a government.  Who maintains that infrastructure though?  Someone has to.  Why are they doing it?  Betterment of Mankind?  Good luck!  It's not going to be successful outside of a small community.  And why is the local cable company letting them use their cables to connect to the world?  How are they connecting to places outside the community?

Why are they doing it? "So I have internet." Self-interest is not the same thing as being an asshole.

Nor do I understand why you'd necessarily need it to work beyond a local scale, so long as people have some perspective. Anarchy is not a prohibition against small groups working together for some reason.

[Solo]

To be blund dman, even as a non-anarchist, I find your reasoning lacking. You insist on saying that it won't work, but don't explain why, other than throwing out the nebulous appeal to human nature, which, last I checked, has been debated by saints, scientists, and philosophers alike for thousands of years without firm conclusion.

[bhu]

We tried that back during the cold war. Eventually even the crazy idiots in office decided they weren't crazy and stupid enough to adhere to a policy that would get everyone--including themselves--killed. Playing chicken doesn't work outside of movies. 

You don't have to be bluffing.

[dman11235]

Why does it need to work beyond local scale?  Because the world wide web is just that: world wide.  and as soon as you introduce that cooperation into it, it's no longer anarchy.  There are rules.  There is cooperation.

@Solo: the reason it won't work is that without the cooperation that government introduces, you are significantly worse off.  It opens the way for a stronger person to come along and take charge, not necessarily in a good way.  This yields a stronger and bigger community, however, and as such it succeeds to a degree.  Anarchy is a power vacuum.  Vacuums get filled sooner rather than later.

[Raineh Daze]

Why does it need to work beyond local scale?  Because the world wide web is just that: world wide.  and as soon as you introduce that cooperation into it, it's no longer anarchy.  There are rules.  There is cooperation.

@Solo: the reason it won't work is that without the cooperation that government introduces, you are significantly worse off.  It opens the way for a stronger person to come along and take charge, not necessarily in a good way.  This yields a stronger and bigger community, however, and as such it succeeds to a degree.  Anarchy is a power vacuum.  Vacuums get filled sooner rather than later.

Anarchy is not the total lack of co-operation. It is not the lack of rules. It's the lack of a state, and more generally a lack of social hierarchy. And it definitely isn't a sudden dearth of intelligence that means ignoring technical workings. If maintained, the internet as a piece of infrastructure in an anarchistic world would be more or less fine because it's extremely decentralised.

A power vacuum that only gets filled if it happens to set up shop right next to a large, aggressive neighbour. Which isn't so much a power vacuum as the standard power-hunger-limited-by-resources thing. Anarchistic communes in Western Europe would probably be preeeeeeetty much fine so far as continuing to exist came along, in the current climate.

[Solo]

Why can't the people fill the power vacuum through syndicalism?

[MrWolfe]

The US got rid of slavery over a hundred years ago, you know that right?

No it didn't. They just changed the name. I believe that's called "rebranding."

The US is far from an evil empire.  North Korea is the closest example to an evil government we have today.  And they're going to collapse sooner rather than later.  All of the evil empires of history haven't lasted for very long.  200 years is not a long time for a civilization/government.  And you'd be hard pressed to find one that was evil for its time lasting longer than that.

North Korea is a poorly governed evil empire whose rulers are delusional to the point of being barely functional. The U.S. is much better managed and has greater resources at it's disposal.

As to whether the U.S. is an "evil empire" or not, well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Also, you presume I didn't read the articles?  No, I didn't.  Mostly because I'm already familiar with the concepts and arguments presented in them.  I read similar articles, taken philosophy, etc. etc.  Your argument is a classic deflection, putting the onus on me instead of yourself.  If you bothered to read my post, I was specifically addressing things presented in those articles.  I laid out the logical progression of a system-less society, ending up with what is effectively a monarchy, and pointed out that all of those supposedly anarchic societies actually have some form of government.

Yes, I noticed that you hadn't read them due to your obvious ignorance on the topics involved. Ignorance != familiar. You were specifically stating falsehoods as fact, and have continued to do so. I have provided support for my claims. You have not.

"but what about the roads?"  Seriously?  You seriously think that people, all these people, are going to voluntarily just build and maintain infrastructure?  "oh, but it'll all be local" wat.  That's the argument?  That's a ridiculous argument.  Society succeed and moves forwards by connecting with other societies, sharing knowledge and technology.  It improves the quality of life and...why am I even arguing this point?  Not worth my time.  It's patently absurd to think that infrastructure can exist in a meaningful way in an anarchic society.  Who builds it?  Who maintains it?  No one would, that's who.  It's a pipe dream for libertarian philosophers, but it can never happen.

And I'm sure you base this opinion on your vast understanding of anarchistic societies. 

The violence argument conveniently ignores the fact that the time we are currently living in is the most peaceful period in history, ever.  Not per capita or any other statistical trick, just ever.  And signs point to a bigger government leading to a more peaceful time.  With more freedom as the governments get better at governing.  Not only that, the argument "there's bad things in government therefore government is bad" is really really bad.  "not everything is perfect therefore get rid of all of it".  That's the argument.  It's a terrible argument.

Sociologists (you know, the people who study the science of human social structures?) would disagree with you. When an entire field of science says you're wrong about a subject within that field, maybe it's time to consider that you might be mistaken.

I feel this is the place where I say I do not respect any of those philosophers you're linking and stuff.  I really don't.  The biggest evidence, and only evidence I really need, that anarchy cannot work in a successful major way is that the world is not in an anarchic system.  The vast majority of major governments today are republics or democracies, and that number is growing as we go.  I prefer a republic like the US because I don't trust people to be in direct control, but I do want more people in direct control than the US's current system.  I absolutely do not want anarchy.  It's just a terrible idea that only works in theoretical philosophical scenarios that make insane assumptions that make no sense for real life situations.

"Philosophers I'm linking to?"

Most of those were basic Wikipedia articles. One was a google search. One was an article written by a research professor at Boston College with a PhD in Biological Sciences, specializing in psychology, animal behavior, general physiology, and neurobiology. The bit about the U.S. being more of an oligarchy than a democracy or a republic was a study conducted by a Professor of Politics at Princeton University with a PhD in Sociology, among other degrees, and a professor at Northwestern University with a PhD in Political Science and an A.B. in History from Stanford, as well as a J.D. from Harvard Law.

You're not really arguing with me, you're arguing with them--and these people are respected experts on the subjects we are discussing. But by all means, dismiss their insights. I'm sure you know better.

You don't have to be bluffing.

Who said anything about bluffing? Radioactive fallout doesn't stop at border crossings, and even if it did the environmental devastation alone would render the planet uninhabitable in short order. The point is that sooner or later someone will force you to actually push the button, either because they don't believe you will or because they've just snapped from the ratcheting tension. Holding the world at nuke-point only ends one of two ways: You back down, or everybody dies.

[altpersona]

syndicalism is a power vacuum

[stanprollyright]

I don't think anarchy can exist on a large scale, as it sets up a Prisoner's Dilemma.  All it takes is one person to realize that it's in their best interest to screw their neighbor and it all goes to shit.  What government does is change the incentives so that cooperation is (supposedly) always in your best interest.

On a small scale, however, anarchy is perfectly successful. Most families operate on anarchic principles. Granted, children are subject to the authority of adults, but between the adults in a family there is no clear hierarchy or authority, just simple cooperation for the good of the family.  There is a wonderful new trend of employee-owned companies that I'm really hoping will become the norm, but those companies still have a hierarchy of managers and sub-managers.

Let's take an example that we're all familiar with: a tabletop RPG group. You gather with a couple friends and sit down to play a cooperative game where you all make a story together.  Most of the time this cooperation works great and you all have a good time, but without the ever-present authority of a GM it can quickly break down because everyone has different expectations from the game. I've played cooperative games where no one and everyone is the GM, but it requires a lot of trust between the players and even so never lasts long because there is no clear direction to the story and no one to arbitrate the rules.

As a side note, there is a really interesting article from 1988 about how, from a game theory perspective, war itself is actually beneficial to all surviving participants and that the decision to make war is quite rationally sound, provided the risks are random and there is an enforced participation. Government may have evolved partially as a function of enforcing this participation.

[Solo]

Can democracy of any kind work on a large scale? I think not. The ancient Greek city states could not even do it; there, democracy was controlled by the few free citizens, the elite. How is communication to be relayed from province to central authority? Shall we rely on carrier pigeon to ferry messages from Calais to London? Or court messengers riding from Normandy to Versailles? Such a system cannot convey the vast amounts of information needed to administer a country in a quick enough timeframe. No, decisions must be made locally, they must be made swiftly, and they must be made decisively.

For large countries, empires, and kingdoms, the only way to rule is through feudalism; one sovereign lord empowered by Christ and his emissary on earth, the Holy Father. And to him is allegiance sworn by vassals and feudal lords, who administer different parts of the realm in his place, and his name. This power structure capitulating to only one supreme authority ensures quick and decisive decision making through the realm, which will bring more peace and prosperity than the mob rule of democracy.