Hacker News Reader

I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is OK or how it should be.

Absolutely no form of government or system (anarchist 1000% included) will solve the problem of people being selfish or bad, all that anarchists contend (that I have seen) is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms.

And considering how Epstein was able to morph the whole political landscape to defend himself for over a decade, uh, any alternative can seem pretty reasonable.

I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.

Examples of anti-hierarchical societies do exist (Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc).

The problem isn't so much that hierarchies just arise naturally, the problem is more that these societies aren't very long lived because they're pretty useless at defending themselves with violence.

It's not totally uncommon to find an anti-hierarchical company. It is almost impossible to find an effective anti-hierarchical military.

As far as I'm aware, both of those had hierarchical leadership structures. The Paris Commune was run democratically through universal suffrage, and the CNT-FAI had its own leadership structures. Now, these societies sought to minimize hierarchy, sure, but I think it's important to recognize that an entirely non-hierarchical society is essentially impossible.

They were without coercive hierarchy. There's a fundamental difference between having a "boss" and electing your "boss".

This was a fantastic essay by a first-wave feminist about the "tyrrany of structurelessness". The idea is basically that if you abolish formal hierarchies, hieararhcies will be established but they'll be informal ones, outside any system of checks and balances. It was dealing with a smaller scale that an entire political system, but it stuck with me and I think it's relevant here: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

This same tyranny exists with money. The beauty of financial transactions as work and recognition is that there's never any ambiguity as far as your work being valued. In academia you have, on the other hand, things such as nebulous awards and recognition of placement on a publication. These things have real implications for career placement. That can be an analogous sort of tyranny, I think.

I very much doubt anyone will see this comment, but I can’t help scratching the itch - I am wrong on the internet! - of course this is second wave feminism...

Well, if you have an area of high inequality suppressed by an outside force I'm sure some "bad" groups could form because they want to challenge those outside forces.

If you have an example of a mafia formed in a stable area without inequality or hierarchies I'd be pretty interested. People in general like the path of least resistance and only turn "violent" when they feel they have to.

However, if your view is most people are just bad and will do bad things on their own then sure, perhaps you want hierarchies in place but I have no clue why someone would think the bad/selfish people wouldn't just rise to the top and just become worse.

"A stable area without inequalities" is a fantasy, there never was such a place. People is different, have different bodies, different minds, I never knew about any "stable area without inequalities".

I believe that most people are good, but there are also some people who are evil/psychopaths, and I don't see why they wouldn't organize a tyrannical hierarchy, they could use violence and other means to rise, I see it as a risk.

> I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

This is a somewhat bizzare argument IMO.

Even if you assume that sociopaths are over represented higher in the hierarchy, base rates force you to acknowledge that most sociopaths are at the bottom.

> In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and > communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you > something is OK or how it should be.

Yes, and when it's bad guys, we call those groups "cartels" and "gangs".

When it's the good guys, we call those "governments". You necessarily need governments (and thus law enforcement and a military of some type) to fend off the bad guys and to maintain order (crime, settle disputes, etc).

As part of all that, be it the good guys or the bad guys, you need a solid leadership structure, or you end up with warring factions causing chaos or accomplishing nothing at all. Who is attracted to leadership positions? "Crappy politicians" and "the Koch brothers".

Anarchism, as described just doesn't work. Even in small anarchistic collectives of a dozen or so people, they inevitably start developing rules and leadership and governance structures.

Rather that abolishing the police and throwing away established systems, I would much rather strive toward iterative reforms of injustices.

The problem with the intro is that it's flat out wrong. It shot say

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are always behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.

Which is the fundamental flaw of anarchism.

Anarchist societies certainly have rules and means of enforcing them, but the process of how the rules are radically more democratic than any liberal democracy. Look up EZLN or Rojava if you want to see practicing anarchist-like societies existing today.

I don't mean to be rude, but it frustrates me that whenever anarchism is discussed so many of the counter arguments are (intentionally or not) strawmen.

I think the main criticism is that centralizing the “legitimate” use of force to, as you say, “keep everyone in line”, is that you get all of the downsides of a violence-based society, and none of the upsides of freedom: such societies still enslave, torture, steal, violate privacy, and mass murder.

Indeed, we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US as a result of such centralization of authority.

I’ve never met an anarchist that believes that by abolishing the state that society will become entirely nonviolent. It’s just a sort of standard “who will build the roads?” straw man: Policing doesn’t need police, and social contracts don’t need a statehouse.

> we’re witnessing an unprecedented wealth transfer right now in the US

Indeed. And it must be regarded as infinitely baffling that everyone is shouting "abolish the police" instead of "redistribute the wealth" ...

The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth.

Without them, 1/30th of the vacant residential stock in the US would be filled with 100% of the homeless people in the US, for example. (There are approximately 35x as many vacant houses/apartments in the US as there are homeless.)

Would you eliminate private property? Or are you suggesting something different?

Yes, both anarchists and socalists share a desire to abolish private property. The major differences are in their strategy and transition states.

Yes. I don't understand why, in the case of socialists, do they believe that the gobernment can manage wealth and resources better than private owners.

And regarding anarchists, I don't understand how would they distribute scarce resources.

...until the major REITs and large private landlord corps hire private security to kick them out, with extreme violent prejudice to send a message, because who're you gonna call to stop them from brutal and unlawful eviction anyway, once you get rid of the police? It's not like the homeless can afford attorneys for eviction court.

Exactly. If you get rid of the police, the wealthy elite will just hire thugs to protect their stuff.

> The police are the ones who are practically preventing the redistribution of the wealth.

Policing prevents, and makes possible, all sorts of things. It is a function of law. By abolishing policing you throw out the baby (the law) with the bathwater (laws that facilitate the concentration of wealth).

Please don't confusing abolishing police with abolishing policing.

Calling a random member of society to do entirely untrained policing in the US would oftentimes result in better outcomes than the current police in the US:

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/outrage-flows-after-prosecutor...

what we really need to do is abolish the people, source of all our people problems. no people, no problems

USA is one of the worst example though, there are plenty of societies which have well behaved police forces and still aren't anarchist.

name one.

Norway. I live in Sweden, our police has gotten a bit worse lately but still very good.

USA has problems, but you don't solve them by becoming an anarchy but by fixing the issues it has. For example instead of 3 months police academy maybe do 3 years like most of the rest of the developed world.

I'm not from the USA, and I'm not advocating anarchy.

A quick google search shows multiple incidents in Sweden where police brutality has occurred and then they try to cover it up.

ie: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/sweden...

There is a wide spectrum between a full-blown authoritarian state and anarchism. I'd argue that democracy in its various forms takes a large fraction of that spectrum. There is parliamentary democracy, semi-direct democracy like in the economically well-off Switzerland and direct democracy that is not in place at any state yet. Any serious summary about a form of politics will emphasize that certain preconditions on economy and society are necessary, otherwise it will not work. Example: after the UdSSR ended, there was parliamentary democracy and a free market economy. But it was incredibly unstable - now Russia is close to being an authoritarian state. China tried to prevent the same fault and instead opened only the economy in a first step.

That said, even for direct democracy things need to happen. A vast majority of the population would have to get informed about major political issues sufficiently well. Also there is not "the Anarchy", rather it's a mixed pool of in part incompatible theories, that can very well have democratic structures. I think there are good ideas, but obviously right now in 2020 nothing of this would work.

>You need some sort of enforcement arm that apprehend and deals violence to these people

You really don't. Violence is completely unnecessary.

Like honestly, will you learn math better if someone is whipping you when you get the wrong answer?

The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely disproves your belief that "the threat of violence keeps everyone inline".

The fact that you gave an example of a situation where violence isn't necessary doesn't preclude situations where violence is still necessary.

Suppose somebody decides that they want your house, and they don't really want to share it with you. It's much nicer than the one they have now. You ask them to reconsider, and they politely decline. Now they are pushing you toward the door. What do you do? You can pretty much either let them do what they want, or not let them do it. "Not letting people do what they are determined to do", is, in some sense, the definition of violence. In this scenario, you could either enact it yourself, by pushing them out the front door, or you could leave it to professional violence-doers, such as the police. Either way the result is the same - the person is no longer able to do the thing which they still very much want to do.

The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary - there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people. I fully support a restorative and rehabilitative approach to justice, but no amount of rehabilitation will let us release the golden state killer back into society. And as long as you keep him locked up, you are doing so through violence. The prison walls aren't really the thing keeping him in there - those can be subverted with enough patience and planning - ultimately it's the people in uniforms who will tackle him and drag him back in if he tries to leave.

> is, in some sense, the definition of violence

No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

>professional violence-doers, such as the police That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise.

>The fact that there are lifelong criminals completely proves that the threat of violence is necessary.

It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals.

>there are people who may never be dissuaded from trying to hurt people

Then how does the threat of violence help? It doesn't.

> Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

So do you think that forcibly abducting someone and locking them in jail isn't violent?

> No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I was eliding what I thought was the obvious conclusion. But let me be more explicit. If someone is determined to do something, and you are determined to stop them, the result will be an escalation that leads to taking actions that hurt, damage, or kill the other person.

> It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals.

You just restated the original assertion I responded to, again without evidence or argument. Why not try responding to the ideas I presented?

> That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise.

That should be their only role. The biggest problem with police is that they are doing a ton of other jobs that they are not qualified to do. A firefighter is trained to put out fires. A paramedic is trained to perform lifesaving medical procedures. Pretty much the only thing a police officer brings to an emergency is a gun. And most emergencies cannot be solved with a gun. A car accident can't be solved with a gun. A cat stuck in a tree can't be solved (except in the loosest sense) with a gun. A psychiatric emergency can't be solved with a gun. But a handful of emergencies can only be solved with a gun - an armed bank robbery, a terrorist attack. And many more situations can only be resolved because the authorities can wield the threat of violence. Consider a criminal investigation for instance. When the feds show up at your business to request financial records, they don't usually carry guns. But even though you may not want to give them documents that will incriminate you, that's still preferable to the investigators calling the police and seizing the files themselves while you sit in the back of the police car.

Your comment ties into the idea that some large percent (1-5%) of the population are sociopaths. (Link has some sources https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa...)

Quite simply many people behave without remorse of empathy and those traits are useful for gaining and taking power and using it against other.

Substantially more than 5% will align themselves with sociopaths, out of self-interest (greed or desperation)

basically anarchy works as long as you ignore everything we know about the human nature, interpersonal relationships and the logistic that make possible for a section of the population to hyperspecialize and drive progress.