So you only make reasonable choices because you are forced to?
A classic example is something like fishing. As an individual, it is entirely reasonable for me to catch as many fish as possible. I won’t put a dent into the fish population, and the more fish I catch, the better it is for me.
However, if everyone fishes as much as they want, the fisheries will be depleted. It is reasonable for an individual to fish as much as they want, but not for a society.
So why doesn’t everyone just fish less, because that is the reasonable thing for the society to do? Well, in an anarchy, I can only choose for myself. If I fish less, but everyone else still fishes as much as they want, then I will have less fish AND the fishery will still be depleted. I am worse off for no gain; it is clearly reasonable for me to fish as much as I can, since the fishery is going to be depleted no matter what.
Even if by a miracle everyone else agreed to voluntarily fish less, it would STILL be in my interest to ‘defect’ and fish as much as I want. My individual choice isn’t going to cause an issue if everyone else is already fishing less, so now I get more fish AND the fishery is fine.
Bottom line, no matter what everyone else does, my rational choice is to fish as much as I want. If everyone is rational, the fishery will be depleted.
This is known as a collective action problem, and is a type of prisoner’s dilemma.
You can’t get out of it through individual rationality. You have to approach the problem collectively.
All situations should be evaluated and re-evaluated at every instance, at every moment in time to account for new information and not only once at the beginning thinking it'll be the same forever.
Fishing as an individual its fine until too many people start doing it, then it becomes even bad for the individual. It becomes harder to fish, the fish get smaller, the prices drop, etc. Some of those things might be even good for society but not for the individual. At that point you've got to re evaluate your position, and even change your occupation. This is what happens all the time. Individual choices lead the way, society only acts after enough individuals have been affected, not before.
So you are saying there is no way to act with foresight? We can’t get together and decide to curtail individual choice so that we avoid a tragedy of the commons?
I don’t think throwing our hands up in the air and just continuing to destroy commons after commons is a good strategy.
No, I didn't say any of that. All I said is what is bad for society is also bad for the individual.
Imagine, for example, there are two companies that make widget foo. They are identical, except Company A charges less than Company B, but Company A pollutes a bunch.
As a society, we want everyone to buy from company B. We would all be better off.
However, that isn't my choice as a consumer. I either buy from B and pay more, and company A still pollutes (one person out of thousands doesn't change the amount of pollution).
Or, I get the cheaper thing from company A, and everything else stays the same.
Why wouldn't I shop at company A? My one purchase wont make or break the company, and it won't change the amount of pollution by any noticeable amount... but I will notice the cheaper price.
This is what a collective action problem is.
What makes you think such coordination would be impossible in the absence of a hierarchy that boils down to “obey these rules or we’ll put a gun in your face”? Most humans are reasonable and cooperative.
If you believe that the threat of violence isn’t the only way to organize a society’s rules, you’re most of the way there.
The fact that there exists a system of consequences backed by violence is what makes people follow social rules. Maybe the community's punishment for vandalism is a fine, or some kind of public service; I'm only willing to pay that penalty because of the threat of state violence being used against me if I don't. I'm all for minimizing the use of violence to enforce social mores as much as possible, but if it's not available at all, we start running into problems enforcing the milder, non-violent social consequences which we strive to use 99% of the time.
If someone attacks someone else and is sent to rehabilitative counseling, how do we make sure they go? In order to enforce the humane response, a violent response needs to exist as a backup.
I would posit that communism would probably also be pretty nice for most people, if it actually worked. So far it hasn't, and its pretty unrealistic that it ever will. That's also my stance on anarchy. Idealist, but unrealistic.
These things are true whether or not you believe humans are capable of living reasonably without being forced. Forcing people isn't stopping these psychopaths from destroying lives, and there's at least reason to believe it helps push them to action.
The gun argument actually works here, if you ban good guys from organizing then all organizations will be bad ones. And an organized group of people always wins against unorganized groups.
I think this should be re-examined through the view of the ~1 million Iraqis recently murdered by one such “organized society”.
I don’t think the (violence-based) organization has the set of benefits you think it does.
> the rest of your post rather depends on that point of view.
The need to feel safe from raiders is fairly universal.
Might surprise you to learn that communism is working this very day, on communes all across the world. Also, the basic tenants of it have manifested themselves in various civilizations throughout history.
Y'know, this is a fair point for a philosophical conversation.
It's a terrible point in a conversation about deciding how to actually organize society, however. You can't ultimately know what people's intentions are before the fact. How other people who claimed to have the same ideology behaved once they gained power is inherently relevant.
Let's turn this around for a second. Let's say someone comes to you and says "Hitler got fascism totally wrong". It's actually a really great ideology that Hitler violated by doing X, Y, and Z. Would you give this person power in the real world?
What? No! Because hitler got fascism perfectly right, and fascism is a terribly unethical way to organize government.
I meant specifically I am all about anarcho communism, it's happening and working right now in communes all around the world, has worked in the past, and imo is better than massive nation states forced to point nukes at each other on a hair trigger to sustain themselves.
Huh, out of all the potential responses, this is actually the one I wasn't expecting. Mostly because fascism is notoriously poorly defined to the point where experts can't agree on what it actually means. To the point where the wikipedia page on its various definition is quite a lengthy read ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism ).
While I agree with you on the downsides of the large, powerful nation states, My point was more about the rationality of outsiders to these ideologies. The reaction of "People labeling themselves this way enacted totalitarian governments during large parts of the 20th century, I probably shouldn't give any power to current people labeling themselves this way." are fairly rational.
If you believe that every human should receive education and healthcare and be protected from criminals then you aren't an anarchist.
And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.
Sounds like taxes to me.
Because presumably, you would be kicking people off of roads, using force, if they refuse to pay the roads tax.
That's using force.
Thats still force, though.
You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads.
It is force, in that you are physically, using a threat of violence against someone else, because you don't want them using your road.
I am not saying that this is morally wrong, or anything. I support the justified used of government force against others. But lets not pretend that this isn't force/violence.
> you can't be a part of the society.
It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence.
You can make the argument that the violence is justified. Which is fine. I absolutely believe that violence and government force can be justified. But justified force is still force!
> You are free to leave.
And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them (although you may believe the violence is justified, justified violence is still violence!).
These people aren't members of society. There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road. We're not building roads to random strangers houses, and we can refuse their attempt to connect to our road.
>It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence.
>And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them
There is no need to use force first. If you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food. They will either leave, join society, die, or use force to try and steal what they need. The only time force is necessary is in the fourth example, where they instigate the use of force.
And if they go there anyway?
What, are you going to setup a giant wall around society?
That's the point. You cant actually stop someone from being in society without using force.
> you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food
Sure they could have access to those things. There could be other people who choose to sell them a house or sell them food, in exchange for their labor, or other goods.
What are you going to do? Stop these other people from selling them food?
You'd have to use force to do that.
There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists.
> They will either leave, join society
No, actually. The other possibility is that they refuse to leave, and other people continue to do business with them. Likely through engaging in trade with them for their labor.
You are not going to succeed with some sort of embargo against them, unless you plan on using force yourself.
> We're not building roads to random strangers houses
They don't need you to connect roads to their house. firstly, because roads are already connected, all over the world. And 2nd, they could just find someone who already has a house that is connected, and rent from them, by exchanging labor or goods that they have acquired.
Or maybe some people would perfectly be fine with letting them stay for free! Charity exists and is common in the world right now. I see no reason why it would stop.
What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them?
It would be exceeding impractical to enforce some sort of society wide embargo against people who refuse to pay taxes, because you are not only going to have to embargo the tax evaders, but you are also going to to have to embargo the people who refuse to follow your embargo. And then, what? You exile those people to? Who already have a house, and are already in the city, or connected to the roads, and are living in society, and the like?
Ridiculous.
You can't do that effectively, without using forces, lol
Or even beyond that, there could be a critical mass of people who refuse to leave society, and also interact with each other. IE, they still use your roads, but also trade with each other. And the trade between them is enough for them to sustain themselves (especially since they already get the benefit of the roads and stuff, but don't have to pay for it!)
.
Really? You think that of a society that everyone together created the rules for, built for their own well being, and that they are voluntary a part of would be full of people willing to throw that all away to help someone who already spit in their face? I think you're wrong. This isn't helping the disadvantaged, this is helping those wishing to exploit you.
Why would the current concept of "charity" exist? It's current use is primarily for the rich to buy PR. If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them, they don't need people who's job it is to sweet talk others out of their money.
>What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them
We aren't discussing tax evasion, we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society. As they have openly done so, everyone in the community will know or will be told.
People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time.
For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society? No, I don't think so. I think that many people's friends and family will be perfectly willing to continue to interact with someone who disagrees with the current state of society.
I certainly wouldn't disown any of my family members, for the mere fact of them engaging in some nebulous action of "rejecting society".
Family matters to a lot of people. You are not going to be able to convince all of a person's friends and family to disown them. Some people will still help out those friends and family
> This isn't helping the disadvantaged
I mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. I think that there are many people who would say that they are disadvantaged.
You are not going to be able to convince everyone. Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive.
> this is helping those wishing to exploit you.
When it comes to friends and family, this just isn't a dealbreaker. Family members look out for other family members all the time, even when those family members are engaging in bad actions against them! This is very common! Family is very important to a lot of people.
As well as friends, to a less extent. I could not imagine any of my friends of family members disowning someone, because they don't agree with this definition of what society should be. Instead, people care more about their close relatives, and friends, than these high level concepts, a lot of the time.
> Why would the current concept of *charity" exist?
Because some people want it to? Even a small percentage of people disagreeing with you, is enough to make this work.
If your whole idea of society hinges on basically everyone in your society engaging in embargoes, that sounds pretty doomed to failure. Some people are going to disagree with you, and that is enough.
> If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them
Ok, but that argument works in my favor. There would absolutely be people who would consider these societal outcasts to be "people in need". And then this community of people, who disagree with you, would help them.
> we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society
But you have to target the people who disagree with you as well. Are you going to hunt down all the people who actually don't agree with you, and instead are perfectly fine with selling goods and services to them?
Or are you going to hunt down the friends and family members of these societal outcasts, for their action of helping out their freaking family member?
Not everyone is going to commit their life and soul to your cause. Many people would simply not care, and would instead be perfectly willing to trade housing and food for labor that these "reject society" people are offering.
Even more so, there is a monetary incentive to engage in trade with those individuals. People could make a bunch of money by trading goods and services with the societal rejects. Are you going to embargo these individuals as well?
That's a lot of people you'd have to embargo, if you are doing it against the people trading goods with them, for profit, as well as any of their friends and family who refuse to go along with your embargo.
> everyone in the community will know or will be told.
Finally, this statement is ridiculous. I live in a city, with a 500 thousand people in it. I could run into any of them, walking in the street, at any time.
Am I going to have to check someone's societal ID or something, before selling them something, or hiring them, or renting out a room in my apartment?
What does that even mean? Will you track me down, and embargo me as well, if I don't care about them rejecting society, and rent them a bedroom in my apartment anyway?
This isn't "some nebulous concept of society," this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of. You say that you wouldn't abandon a family member, but what they are doing is akin to standing up and with a clear mind stating "I don't consider you family and want nothing to do with you." That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person.
>mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food.
These people chose not to have access to food. They are not "disadvantaged," they are facing the consequences they knew they would face for their actions. There's no need to immediately starve them, but they know they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it.
>Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive
It is not "my concept of society," it is something the society together builds. Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist.
Most of your arguments have put "me" as the ruler of this society and justify actions as them rebelling against me. This is not how the power structure goes. People may be willing to help those rebelling against "me," but they are less willing to aid someone rebelling against something they themselves chose to enact. Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances.
Not everyone in the US lives in some 100 person small town "community". Instead, many people live in cities that have hundreds of thousands of people in it.
> That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person.
People absolutely still continue to support family members, all the time, even when they do "bad" things. It is extremely common. People care a lot about family. Yes, many people would absolutely still support them. I absolutely would continue to support them, as would many others.
And there is nothing that you could do to stop me from helping them, unless you are going to do something very impractical, like exile everyone who supports their friends and family as well.
> These people chose not to have access to food.
Doesn't matter. There would still be people who disagree with you, and would consider them to be disadvantaged, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
> they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it.
Of course they could still be in the community. They could still be in the community if they have friends and family who would be willing to support them. Which there definitely could be! People such as myself would absolutely continue to support my friends and family, even if they did this.
> Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist.
Or, they can continue to live in the same place as you do, and continue to support individuals who "reject" society.
> . Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances.
Ok, and I am saying that people attempting to enforce punishment on every individual who harbors a friend or family member is going to be extremely impractical.
There are numerous motivations and reasons for someone to "harbor" others, and this "society" that you are talking about would require a near unanimous agreement on everything, which just isnt going to happen.
Instead, there would be a sizeable minority of people, who would continue to work with their friends and family. Why? Because thats what happens all of the time, in real life. People, all the time, continue to support their friends and family, even when they have done bad things.
Which can be broken down into numerous communities living together.
>People absolutely still continue to support family members, all the time, even when they do "bad" things
This isn't someone doing a "bad" thing, this is someone of full mind willfully saying they want nothing to do with the family. You think they'd still force their aid on them?
>And there is nothing that you could do to stop me from helping them, unless you are going to do something very impractical, like exile everyone who supports their friends and family as well.
You seem to still be under the impression that "I" am forcing my will. Decisions are made by the community, that these people are a part of. I'm not forcing people to sell out their friends, their friends are the ones rejecting their help. Your idea that people would still unquestionably offer help to people who have stated they do not want it and will not return it is just silly. If that happened in modern society, we would assume mental illness and barring that cut ties for at least some time.
All of your arguments resolve around someone committing some bad deed, and some faceless authority issues punishment on them. That is so far removed from what is happening, I don't know how to continue this conversation.
Lol, so now you are talking about ending the concept of cities? This is getting even more implausible.
> I'm not forcing people to sell out their friends, their friends are the ones rejecting their help
If no one is going to force people to sell out there friends then you need to understand that a lot of people would simply continue to provide support to them.
> Your idea that people would still unquestionably offer help
I am not saying everyone would. Instead, I am saying some people would. And some is enough. People absolutely can care a lot about their friends, family, and children, enough so as to provide unconditional support.
This happens all the time, in real life!
> that cut ties for at least some time.
Lots of people, right now, do not cut ties with family members, who do aweful things.
> willfully saying they want nothing to do with the family. You think they'd still force their aid on them?
I am telling you, that I would help any of my close friends or family, personally, for sure, as would many people I know, and you can't convince me otherwise to not help them.
This already happens, right now, in the real world!
I think that some people care a whole lot about their friends and family, and no argument that you make overrules this.
People, right now, provide massive amounts of unconditional support to many of their friends.
I absolutely would do that, for example, regardless of the arguments that are being made.
IE, I know many people that would never ever abandon their family, because they "rejected society", and that there is zero argument that people could make to convince them otherwise, because family matters to them.
No, I am not. I am discussing furthering what already happens, where cities break down into smaller sections.
>am telling you, that I would help any of my close friends or family, personally, for sure, as would many people I know, and you can't convince me otherwise to not help them
I am not trying to convince you, your friend said they don't want your help. If you continue trying to force it on them, you are an asshole.
>Lots of people, right now, do not cut ties with family members, who do aweful things.
Nobody has done an "awful thing". I'm done explaining this.
You keep making the same statements that don't even reference what I have said. I understand that friends and family are willing to stand by when their loved one does something bad. I also have friends and family. That is not analogous to what is being discussed. A closer example would be a family having an argument about where to celebrate Christmas, until finally someone breaks off and holds their own celebration.
I am saying that if my friend "rejected society", but also asked for my help, then I would continue to give them the help that they asked for.
It would not be an asshole move if they have asked for my help, but also have "rejected society" at the same time. Because they asked for my help.
My support for my close friends and family is almost unconditional.
And I am talking about the individuals who both "reject society", and also want to live in that society, in a house or something, or they want to be able to eat, and these specific individuals are asking me for help, while also "rejecting society" at the same time.
I would provide them that housing or food that they asked from me, even if they "reject society".
> That is not analogous to what is being discussed. A closer example would be a family having an argument about where to celebrate Christmas, until finally someone breaks off and holds their own celebration.
Yes it is analogous. If my friends or family did what ever it is that you are saying that they are doing, I would still continue to give them unconditional support that they ask from me.
> until finally someone breaks off
And if they "break off" but still ask me for my help, then I would still give them my help.
Yes I think so. Are you arguing there are no bad people in the entire human populace?
Regardless, it doesn't make me "special."
Superior to others is "special," even if you consider the majority to be superior.
> They are still capable of acting rationally
Which one is it?
Why people act like the do is irrelevant to the system you are proposing. Or are you saying that abolishing all enforcement systems will cause everything bad in the universe to disappear?
Anyhow, I think we've milked this conversation for as long as it has capability to provide value, so perhaps we agree to disagree on this topic.
I believe through some accidents before or after birth lead to some people are completely unable to act reasonably. I don't think they are the people you consider "bad" but people with severe disabilities.
>Why people act like the do is irrelevant to the system you are proposing. Or are you saying that abolishing all enforcement systems will cause everything bad in the universe to disappear?
I don't think that the world is full of people who actively wish harm on others, and usually those people are trying to improve things for themselves. If we build a society based on making things good for everybody involved, these will be rare cases that society can address as they happen.
Put in simple terms, those people may currently be unwilling to act reasonably, but are completely capable in the right circumstances.