Comment by browserface | Hacker News Reader

Comment by browserface | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Anyone who has ever lived in a share house (or next to one) knows that without laws civilization will descend into absolute chaos and endless tit for tat revenge warfare.

Try parenting with anarchist principles.

At some point you run into limits. The point is, what imposes those limits? Physics, gravity, society or yourself?

Ideally the limits you put on yourself should mean you never encounter (negatively or destructively) any of the other systems of limits. But, not all people are capable of always limiting or controlling themselves, and no...that's not the fault of their being "arbitrary restrictions" or "ludicrous laws" and it's not a "reaction against meaningless oppressive authority", it's just people are not perfect and not always good at acting in a way that doesn't put them up against the other sources of limits.

Even if someone has perfect self-control. Who says they have perfect knowledge of the limits, which if they were to cross them would bring about their destruction or detriment, in any given situation?

You should be the source of truth and guide for your life, but I don't think you can expect to know everything and avoid all risks if you only pay attention to what you think is OK and ignore signals from elsewhere. I think you need to balance it with acknowledging that other people and society has some fucking clue about that stuff as well. It's not perfect either, but you shouldn't not factor it into your decisions.

If anarchists were so clever at charting their own courses, how come they end up getting arrested for stupid shit? I suppose they're "not true anarchists".

Anarchism does not suggest no rules, but voluntary association. A flat share is a perfect example in that if ypu don't like the rules you find other people to share with - the rules are not imposed from above, but the result of negotiation and entered into voluntarily.

I'm not an anarchist though I share some of the views, but so much of the criticism of anarchism comes from misrepresenting anarchism as rejecting all organisation and rules.

Different forms of anarchism favor different levels of organisation, but part of the reason why there are so many variations is exactly that they all believe in the existence of systems of organization and enforcement of rules.

I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts.

But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright.

How is that different to the current global system? I mean it like, I was born in country A, then traveled to country B and C, and discovered actually I didn't like the culture and rules in country A, so I came to live in countries B and C. I can go where I like to choose the system of governance that suits me. None of these countries are anarchist....If anarchism speaks more to the relationship between an individual and a system, and less to the system itself, is it really a system of organization that could replace a social/political system, isn't it more just like a "guiding philosophy" for some individuals? Or a way of describing a set of things that some people might do, even if they are not "anarchists".

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

All of this was there from the earliest conceptions of anarchism.

The difference is one of degree. Moving to another country requires means to do so, and immigration procedures imposed on you by others that means inherently you have rules imposed on you wherever you go.

It also involves the state you move from imposing rules on you that you have never been free to consent to, and a central aspect of anarchism is to e.g reject that the state has a justifiable claim to regulate property in the first place, and so that unlike a flat share where you share a space that is actively used by others, the state attempts to monopolise commons with threats of force.

The degree seems to me to scale up. The sharehouse, the state. It's all the same thing. A sharehouse can be plenty coercive too. Parent - child ? Coercive. Personal relationships, they can be coercive too sadly. But "coercion" on the other side is just "the power of bad", it's psychology. Criticism and threats of penalties really do make people behave better. But it's complicated. Read "The Power of Bad".

And don't give me that complaints about immigration and means. An anarchist should be one for personal responsibility, choice, freedom and negotiation, should be able to bend reality to their will rather than complaining in the streets that it change, right? I guess I also wonder, what the hell do you replace the state with? I mean, states didn't just "magically appear" out of nowhere. They're born out of history of blood and death and suffering and overcoming endless civilizational challenges (Read "Why the West Still Rules For Now"), and I think there's a chance they're our current best solutions to the problem of organizing for stability.

If anarchism was a powerful personal philosophy, a couple rules and regulations would be not barrier. All is negotiation and anarchists are apparently adept at such. I don't get it. Sorry.

Why submit to the sharehouse bitch, but rail and wail against the state? I don't get it. It's the same dynamic. I think if you put the state on a pedestal over you, it's like a type of daddy complex where you are giving away your power. It's all just life. There's no getting around that's it's gonna be hard. Anarchists seem like they want to adapt and thrive, but then they're also complaining. I think their ideology has been misused and they're having an identity crisis.

I appreciate your responses and attitude and I'm not trying to be offensive to you. I'm tapping out of this discussion because I think it's a waste of time to discuss in this age, but I do appreciate your style. Best of luck to you both!

The biggest problem - people can't easily change countries nowadays (and even before borders, I bet traveling that far was cost prohibitive). So you end up in the situation where you have to follow rules of the contract, which you did not explicitly agreed to

If anarchists are anarchists, they shouldn't be cowed by "top down" rules, they should be able to find a way round them, to suit themselves, without destroying themselves. So that it's "not easy" to change countries shouldn't stop an "anarchist" because they're all about negotiation, personal responsibility and choice, and freedom right? Anarchists shouldn't be people crying in the streets how unfair it is that "big brother" is ruining their pathetic little lives. They should be the men and women of action, calculating and executing their next move for their maximum benefit, and possibly for humankind too.

And if it's voluntary, isn't everything voluntary? I voluntarily accept the social contract, or I end up in jail. I voluntarily accept the laws of physics, or I end up maimed or worse. Voluntary speaks to choice, which everyone has. But negotiated...I don't expect most sharehouses (or workplaces, or schools, or whatever) that you enter as a fresher will make their rules negotiable to you. But to another extent, in "advanced" society, the "law" is negotiable through he courts and lawyers, and blackmail, and in "less developed" society, negotiable through bribes and so on. I don't get where anarchism fits in.

It seems like, either it's something that doesn't make sense (no rules) but people believe it zealotly and use it as disguise for violence, or it's something that can work (rules and choice) but not something that works as some standalone organizing principle of a society that is somehow in opposition to the world today. I mean if anarchism is against society, isn't that oxymoron, because if you're anarchist, you can just exercise your choice and negotiate your way to a better situation for yourself? So you don't have to "change the world" just bend it to how you want it locally.

Am I being too sophist? I don't think so but I seem to be missing some point to anarchism. I might just not get what anarchism is, or maybe I don't want to get it. But it seems like it doesn't make sense to me.

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

The anarchist response to the problems you describe is to advocate the destruction of the state as they see it as inherently an aggressive, coercive abuse of power.

Your attempt at describing everything as voluntary misses that when we talk about something being voluntary, we expect it to be free of coercion. The threat of jail is coercive.

This is a typical left-right distinction where the left are concerned with de facto ability to exercise choice where the right are focused on de jure technical possibility of exercising choice.

As such anarchists argue for the dismantling and destruction of coercive power structures that prevents people from having the de facto ability to exercise free choices.

I think you got downvoted for the last paragraph, because otherwise, your post has a solid point and I am sure describes worldview of many people.

I yet to decide for myself on the topic. Just a random thought related to your post - while not making a mistake appears to be important from the individual and perhaps humanity side, it is not necessarily important for there life as the whole (I don't know that, just one possibility I am thinking about).

You might agree with most of what I wrote, and disagree with the last paragraph, that's OK, there's plenty of room for diverse opinions, but then I guess my idea is not new to you, except the last paragraph which must be difficult for you to read.

I think anarchism might be one of those ideologies, that has been misused by rabble rousers to get foot soldiers to do street violence for some cause where the strings are pulled by higher ups. Probably this is a perversion of the true ideals of anarchists, so it's hard today to tell what those are.

But to anyone reading it who thinks of themselves as an anarchist, you'll down vote because it's true and instantly disproves your cherished anarchist ideals, so to protect yourself and your worldview from that you need to pretend it's wrong.

I get it and that's OK for you to do that for you. :) I'm not saying this here for you. I'm saying this here for me. It's a big world out there. Plenty of room for different opinions and experiences.

It's not possible to change people's minds on the internet. They change if they're ready themselves, nothing to do with me, or people respond with hostility to new/unfamiliar information, it doesn't matter if it's correct, like me saying anarchists get arrested for stupid shit, but then explained away as "not true anarchists". I'm not writing here to discuss with people or try to contribute to their perspectives. I'm just writing my points for myself. If people agree with me, I think it's low value because the idea was not new enough. If people disagree, downvote or fight with me, I think it's a waste of my time. Either way, it's a waste of time to engage with others online about ideas. But I think it's good for me to write, but not necessarily put it up here. Sometimes I do tho because I think I like to see my point recorded publicly. I guess that's just vanity, and meaningless. Maybe I should stop that. The noise of agreement or fighting is meaningless. What matters is to think for yourself. Who cares what other people think about ideas? They will be hostile if your ideas is outside their ken, and meaninglessly agreeable otherwise. Either way, your idea should have value to you in your knowing of it. It shouldn't be about them.

I realized I wasted so much time in the past "discussing" on online forums. Now I see it for what it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com