Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuesdayrain | Hacker News Reader

I certainly behave better in the presence of authority. It's unlikely I am the only one.

How do you behave when you yourself have authority? Would you stop respecting social norms and expectations if you did, and go on an egomaniacal power trip?

Currently I behave because it's in my interest to abide by laws, even those I don't agree with. If all authority disappeared overnight, I believe my best course of action would be to immediately assemble an armed militia so we could enforce a set of rules within a community that we believe are the best. I would still respect many social norms, but definitely not all of them. One thing that comes to mind is that "innocent until proven guilty" goes out the window. If I perceive someone to be a threat then I will use whatever means I have to neutralize them, rather than waiting for some kind of arbitration.

Right, so you agree that it's better for you to have very limited power and exist without authority, in which case you'd have to confirm to most social norms or suffer consequences, than for authority to exist and for people like you to accede to it?

Because in our system, if you were to accumulate enough authority it wouldn't be in your interest anymore to follow laws.

It's only better for me in an idealistic scenario where my local militia succeeds. If a bigger and stronger one comes around then my life could quickly become horrible.

I'd a bigger and stronger far away stranger militia wanted to come and invade you it wouldn't matter if you had authority or not.

It matters a lot if the authority is big enough that a random militia cannot topple them. A lone village can be raided with impunity, id the village is a part of a big country then soldiers will move in to protect them.

There is no reason to have such a small authorities. Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors. It comes with some small sacrifices, but it's still much better than otherwise.

In practice, your village can come to an agreement with other small villages and do military exercises together while still maintaining autonomy, and you can then maintain complex weapon systems and large armies.

> Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors.

I don't believe that, any link? City states are not anarchic nor are tribes.

I think it's very naive to think a local militia system of government would work like the game Top Trumps.

You'd still have a bunch of people thinking you are a jerk - the reason your life might quickly become horrible is because you've been a jerk to pretty much everyone by claiming that you need to rule them by force.

And this is why anarchy can’t and dosen’t work. 10 minutes later it will be replaced by a new feudalism led by people trying to make themselves king to protect their own best interests.

(Edited to a more general statement.)

I'm shocked at how nicely this is wired into our brains. The slightest sight of a cop car in my surroundings cuts all desire to drive even near the speed limits.

I'd argue this shows that you are responding to the punishment, and have complete disregard for the authority (since you don't care to obey the rule when punishment is unlikely).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com