Bay 12 Games Forum

The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived.  Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.

This is simply not true. Many animals form "pacts" and attack other opposing pacts. These pacts are often dominated by an individual that has power over the rest. Birds construct nests which they claim as property and defend from other birds.

We are natural animals, and anything we do can be considered part of nature in the same way birds build nests. So our societies, cities etc are in no way contradictory to nature. Declaring anything to be unnatural is not an argument.

but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

By freely distributing this information, you have possibly allowed another country to further increase their control and restrict your freedom. Whilst I believe in free speech etc, this is not such an unreasonable viewpoint to have, and it is not a one-sided debate.

So restrict Aaron Schwartz's freedom, or risk having your freedom diminished. Because external influences are something that any anarchy could not ignore.

For the record, I am trying to present situations where anarchy would not work. Where limiting someones freedom is simply not a choice and people will have to have their freedom limited in some form and someone is going to have to make that decision. There are quite a number of these situations.

Our own forum is somewhat anarchistic. Toady is admin, but he doesn't do that much in overall policing or rule-making.

The forum is basically an absolute autocratic dictatorship which just happens to have a really nice and lenient dictator. Toady has absolute power over the whole forum and can exercise it at his will. He permits you to post, you have no right to.

If everyone decided to do something with the forum, they could not without Toady.

Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

Reflex vs. Instinct

"Examples of instinctive behaviors in humans include many of the primitive reflexes, such as rooting and suckling, behaviors which are present in mammals."

Then you remember the rest of the world has some pretty loopy people in it.

An interesting point. What would an anarchist society do when faced with a crazy dictator. This dictator has the advantage of allowing his soldiers no choice in what they are told to do, which results in a much more reliable and efficient millitary.

The same as today ? Nothing ??

Wait what? Nothing? To Google you go. However the point is that there is nothing to stop people polluting in an anarchist society, and that a structured government at the least allows for the ability to regulate this by placing restrictions on peoples freedom.

Its another one of those scenario's where in either case, some group of people are going to lose their freedom. How do you decide which and enforce the decision (most likely against the will of the restricted group)?


Sometimes passing/enforcing some rule is necessary, even against the will of the people (which would require power). Sometimes it does require an individual or minority to exert power over the majority. After all, the people are not always right...

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/

Wait, US Federal loans have interest? Silly strange America.

I dont possibly see how we live in a dystopia at all. Quality of life is higher than it has ever been, you have access to free education regardless of your economic status, same with health (at least here in Australia. Also most of Europe, and a bunch of other countries). Technology is constantly improving, doing things from sending people to the moon right through to curing deseases that previously ravaged mankind. Hell, we can have this conversation due to the technological marvel that is the internet. It is basically changing the way the world works, and has been a platform for sucessful protests as well.

I am saying this as as someone who is far from wealthy.

It's hardly perfect, and why I continue to support changes to improve it. Some people get unlucky (and this needs to be fixed), parts of the world are in (relatively) pretty bad shape. Obesity is a problem (ironically due to the over availability food). But it seems pretty damn good in comparison to basically any other point in human history, and seems to be continuing to improve.

Things like the nasty laws you mentioned also get strucken down over time, even in unexpected, highly autocratic countries. Its not just always bad ontop of bad.

Also in an anarchist society, what is to stop your neighbour from burning large quantities of coal? How do you address such an issue? Unfortunetely there is a non-insignificant number of people who do not believe that the ecosystem is vunerable. Want to stop ecological destruction? They don't, and they have people fully willing to work for them as their own choice that dont either.

I wouldnt think anyone who offers themselves up for elections is necessarily after the power for negative reasons. Consider someone wanting to change laws for <insert something universally positive here>, I would think anyone who wants to do positive would actively be driven to put themselves up for election.

That doesnt mean everyone offering themselves for election is good (oh my no), just that in a proper election people are at least supposed to weed out the bad people. A form of allowing society some choice in who gets power.

It is also why I believe that it is important that a government structure does not consolidate power too heavily in one position. A President's (or Prime Minister for me) power should be dependent on "the people" and the rest of the government structure should not be allowed to function completely independently. The idea being that if you get elected, your powers are limited and not absolute.

I understand what you mean in your second point and mostly agree. Governence changes over time for better or for worse this is a given. And any good government is bound to fall eventually, I just think that anarchy would be one of the more unstable forms of politics.

Until you put forth your preferred political ideology so that I can pick apart its theoretical flaws, and it will surely have many, this will be a very one-sided debate.

My point is not that anarchy is somehow inferior per se, but that it flat out could not exist for any long period of time, and will deconstruct itself into a more traditional form of rulership. Many of the ideas (such as not being pushed around by people, no corruption) are all good ideas. I acknowledge that anarchy, like most other political ideals had good intentions.

My belief in a social-democratic style government etc etc does indeed have flaws (it would be silly to claim otherwise), but it at least has more capability of sustaining its own existance, or breaking down into another form of governence. Or at the very worse, turning into anarchy for some period of time then another form of governence rising from that.

As an anarchist, my response to you is that slavery is incompatible with anarchy

And for a group of anarchists that saw the slaves not has human (and thus have no problem exerting force over them)?

And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

We have the courts to provide recourse for their victims. They do to in a way that adheres to a structure instead of "whatever the victim feels like". What would this reprisal be? Revenge killing from a family member? Which could create an endless loop of payback crimes. It seems that such a system would be very vunerable to strong, irrational emotional.

Here is another scenario. What if I diddnt do anything wrong but the "victim" is convinced otherwise. what shields me from the "victims" recourse here?


Also what would happen in the scenario where 2 nearly equal groups of people have a strong but opposite opinion on a rule/enforcing a rule?

Why do they need the ability to make people do things?  Just because that's how things tend to operate in the world today doesn't mean that's how things must necessarily be.  A person can organize a group because they actually want to work together, not because they're being made to by threat of consequence, and in that situation the organizer is not a ruler.  They're just a person with a job like everyone else.

What if some people of that group disagree with others?

Besides, what you are saying sounds more like communism (the original definition, not the red-scare definition).

True anarchy is not chaos, but a lack of rules impeding an individual's liberty to do as he pleases without harming others.

A lack of certain rules or all rules? Without any rules why would I not harm others and what would be done if I did, and with some rules, what is to enforce them?

The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.

Well, people would have to effectively enforce the rules somehow if they exist. And it would seem the most effective way to do that would be to form an organisation for managing and enforcing the rules. So I dont see how Anarchy wouldn't just collapse back into a government.