Why I am Basically an Anarchist

[wufwugy]

Gah, the forum ate my original response. Again

wufwugy, your making an insane amount of assumptions in your post. Also, most of the time it doesn't appear that your backing up your arguments, your just stating them.

Not sure if I follow on the assumptions. I haven't really stated much other than general truisms. If you would like clarification on specific examples, let me know

I also haven't been 'backing it up' because I'm usually long-winded and didn't wanna make the post into a dissertation. If you would like some backing up of specifics, let me know. Some of it will be hard since it's either generalizations from subjects like biology and social sciences in which specific studies are hard to find or indirect, or refers to epistemological and logical issues which are quite difficult to just point to a link and be like here look see evidence. I could do some though so let me know

"Again, this isn't black or white. If I kidnapped you and your brother, held a gun to your head, told you that I was going to either kill you or him but I will allow you to choose, if after you chose yourself and I killed you, could I tell your brother that you wanted to die?"

I think this example arguably could never occur in a vacuum. What I mean is that this situation could occur randomly without any backstory seems impossible, so who knows? Your brother may have done something that lead to this situation. Now lets say he didn't: I feel its also the crux of making any sense of the world for me. I can't really argue that this situation is possible or impossible, because I really have no logical proof besides my life experience.

What it seems like your trying to say here is that some people in the world are vicious hounds, incapable of being or learning how to be good and must be governed and forced in the right direction. When put in a situation where they could "seize" power, they will do so. Thats a hell of an assumption, surely backed up by some evidence. I don't believe that there are people in the world who are incapable of doing "good" or whatever you feel are the absolute values of the world. Therefore, I can't agree with your argument, and I will agree to disagree with you.

I wasn't making a moral statement. I was pointing out the flawed logic (a sort of faulty generalization) in your assertion that consequences of actions that are acted out = desired. There are loads of consequences to loads of things, many of which are dynamic and dillemmatic in nature, and the human genome has evolved to only be cognizant of and reactionary to a handful of them in any given circumstance. Even then, our decision making processes are quite flawed and often result in normally erratic behavior

"Yeah, it sucks, but that's reality. We don't live in a universe where all things are dichotomies. Overlap and connectedness is tremendous, paradoxes abound, and ideological contradictions do not carry over into the physical universe that often. Decision making is hosted by currently innumerable factors, and it is not at all unnatural for a human to lament the multinational corp pay structure while still being in his best interest to purchase product from that corp."

This is absolutely not true. In this Bounty situation, if you think that best interest means paying the least amount of money, your both limited in your scope of what money is but also wrong. Lets say people did not want to purchase paper towels from a producer who paid executives high salaries. They wanted their salaries lowered x amount. They decide to boycott paper towels from Bounty until they lower the executives salaries. Now lets say this is 30 million peoples values, and they all boycott Bounty. One of Two things (maybe others?) will happen: 1. Another paper towel company will come along with low executive salaries and take all the customers. 2. Bounty will lower their executive pay and keep their business. This is what the economy is all about. People offer you goods and services that you want. If enough people want a certain kind of good or service, it will be offered. If enough people want a paper towel company that has low executive pay, it will be offered because a profit can be made.

You seem to be equating scales. While you're right about the consequences of individual actions on a large and collusive scale, what I was referring to is the standard that without that en masse revolt, the game changes. Also, to call individuals acting in harmony for the ultimate good a rarity is overstating its frequency IMO. This type of thing is represented in Tragedy of the Commons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

It is important to keep scale in mind and to be sure to not accidentally equate different situations. A well known example of this can be found in physics i.e. big scale = relativity model and small scale = quantum model, and attempts to explain one via analogizing the other yields no fruit even though it's all about the 'same' stuff.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I wasn't making a moral statement. I was pointing out the flawed logic (a sort of faulty generalization) in your assertion that consequences of actions that are acted out = desired. There are loads of consequences to loads of things, many of which are dynamic and dillemmatic in nature, and the human genome has evolved to only be cognizant of and reactionary to a handful of them in any given circumstance. Even then, our decision making processes are quite flawed and often result in normally erratic behavior

I'm interested in an example of this.

You seem to be equating scales. While you're right about the consequences of individual actions on a large and collusive scale, what I was referring to is the standard that without that en masse revolt, the game changes. Also, to call individuals acting in harmony for the ultimate good a rarity is overstating its frequency IMO. This type of thing is represented in Tragedy of the Commons

Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is important to keep scale in mind and to be sure to not accidentally equate different situations. A well known example of this can be found in physics i.e. big scale = relativity model and small scale = quantum model, and attempts to explain one via analogizing the other yields no fruit even though it's all about the 'same' stuff.

I enjoyed reading about the tragedy of commons. But my question is why is it impossible for the herders to have the perception that William Lloyd has? All that seems to be outlined here isn't a situation where peoples interests always creates an outcome worse off for both, but instead a very tricky situation in which it is hard to perceive what really is the right course of action. So what is government doing in this situation? Protecting the intelligent ones from the stupid ones?

[wufwugy]

I'm interested in an example of this.

This really can be seen in everything. Take having a child for example. Would you say that the consequences of that decision are numerous, dynamic, and largely unknown? Sure. But would you also say that a person desired whatever consequences developed out of their decision to bear children because they chose that course of action? Probably not

How many parents do you think are cognizant of the probability of their kid being born with one of many unknown disorders, or dying prematurely in an accident, or not being that skilled at life, or that their own parenting isn't as good as they figure it will be? I see tremendous consequences to the decision to bear children that are neither predictable nor desired, and this is how it is for just about everything.

If you're caught up on my usage of the word 'evolution', what I should say is that the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that organisms develop rationality or any form of categorical skill or perception, but that organisms develop tools which allow them to utilize their environment better than the competition. This theory predicts that organisms would therefore have flawed perceptions and tools in literally every area imaginable. Nature doesn't 'care' about doing things right, it 'cares' about simply being better than the competition, and that's all

I enjoyed reading about the tragedy of commons. But my question is why is it impossible for the herders to have the perception that William Lloyd has? All that seems to be outlined here isn't a situation where peoples interests always creates an outcome worse off for both, but instead a very tricky situation in which it is hard to perceive what really is the right course of action.

It's not that it's impossible, but that it's a social paradigm which seems unavoidable for our species. It doesn't HAVE to be this way, it just IS this way. We're kinda stuck within our limitations, and have to work with what we got. While it is hypothetically possible for the entire community to be on some order of enlightenment, that's just not how our society works at this point, and the data has shown that the better results in mitigating our limitations comes out of 'artificial' regulation

So what is government doing in this situation? Protecting the intelligent ones from the stupid ones?

Well, the purpose of governance here would be to mitigate the effects to the best benefit of the society. This would take a very very good governing system made up of the people and for the people (not what the system in the US is evolving into). The point isn't about what should be done or what is right, but with how things work. And the way things work in human civilization is that there are numerous built in exploits based on actions that humans naturally gravitate towards which could be partially mitigated by a good regulatory structure.

Take a very powerful virus for example. We've all heard about how a virus can be so powerful that it kills itself off by killing its hosts at a quicker rate than its ability to transmit to another host. Now imagine if this virus was individually conscious and were able to artificially alter their consumption and transmission rates in a way that their entire civilization doesn't annihilate itself. They would have to do this via some form of regulatory system that made the virus act in a collective manner because without that regulation they will naturally gravitate towards consuming beyond capacity.

It's the same for humans. The purpose of governance is to counteract our indigenous flaws and enhance our indigenous strengths. This can, and is often, misused, and government is on the order of totalitarian. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's no coincidence that the happiest societies on the planet are also the most socialist i.e. have the government made up of mostly its people and regulates to value the community as a whole

[IowaSkinsFan]

But would you also say that a person desired whatever consequences developed out of their decision to bear children because they chose that course of action? Probably not

Actually, I would say yes. Maybe I wouldn't use the word desire, but to say they did not "want" those consequences I feel would be wrong. If by desire we mean consciously verbalized to themselves they they did not want "X" consequence of having a child, then of course they probably did not desire it. But to me, most people do not have the perspective to understand what they need, want, and feel, and I'd like to push them in a direction of better understanding that.

Nature doesn't 'care' about doing things right, it 'cares' about simply being better than the competition, and that's all

I think this is very hard to factually argue either way, but I'll agree to disagree on this point.

It's not that it's impossible, but that it's a social paradigm which seems unavoidable for our species. It doesn't HAVE to be this way, it just IS this way. We're kinda stuck within our limitations, and have to work with what we got. While it is hypothetically possible for the entire community to be on some order of enlightenment, that's just not how our society works at this point, and the data has shown that the better results in mitigating our limitations comes out of 'artificial' regulation

Well, the purpose of governance here would be to mitigate the effects to the best benefit of the society. This would take a very very good governing system made up of the people and for the people (not what the system in the US is evolving into). The point isn't about what should be done or what is right, but with how things work. And the way things work in human civilization is that there are numerous built in exploits based on actions that humans naturally gravitate towards which could be partially mitigated by a good regulatory structure.

Take a very powerful virus for example. We've all heard about how a virus can be so powerful that it kills itself off by killing its hosts at a quicker rate than its ability to transmit to another host. Now imagine if this virus was individually conscious and were able to artificially alter their consumption and transmission rates in a way that their entire civilization doesn't annihilate itself. They would have to do this via some form of regulatory system that made the virus act in a collective manner because without that regulation they will naturally gravitate towards consuming beyond capacity.

It's the same for humans. The purpose of governance is to counteract our indigenous flaws and enhance our indigenous strengths. This can, and is often, misused, and government is on the order of totalitarian. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think this was a very well structured argument and I can't really say I disagree with it. My question would be is it the government that truly needs to do this? Can a private organization do many of the things that you believe the government should be doing?

It's no coincidence that the happiest societies on the planet are also the most socialist i.e. have the government made up of mostly its people and regulates to value the community as a whole

I think this is where I radically differ from a lot of people: I don't think the fact that people are happy is necessarily a good thing. If a child throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get fed chocolate, so his mother gives him chocolate any time he wants, the kid will probably be happy given most scales. To me, happiness is something that is earned, not given. I would'nt want someone to be happy if they were not the ones creating it through a high level of understanding. Fuck, I'm sure a homeless man would be happy if he won 7 million dollars, but I don't think anyone is arguing this is something that is fantastic and should be praised. If you do think this, again, I'll agree to disagree.

[CoccoBill]

Nature doesn't 'care' about doing things right, it 'cares' about simply being better than the competition, and that's all

I think this is very hard to factually argue either way, but I'll agree to disagree on this point.

I think, judging by the quotes, wuf meant that as an analogy. Nature doesn't "want" anything, it just is. To describe the processes of evolution using deliberate purposefulness as an analogy can be an easier way to discuss them. This is simply "survival of the fittest", the ones with beneficial traits tend to survive and prosper over ones without them, making it seem like nature wanted that to happen. This has very vividly been explained by evolution theory, and I don't think there's much disagreement about it in the scientific community.

It's no coincidence that the happiest societies on the planet are also the most socialist i.e. have the government made up of mostly its people and regulates to value the community as a whole

I think this is where I radically differ from a lot of people: I don't think the fact that people are happy is necessarily a good thing. If a child throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get fed chocolate, so his mother gives him chocolate any time he wants, the kid will probably be happy given most scales. To me, happiness is something that is earned, not given. I would'nt want someone to be happy if they were not the ones creating it through a high level of understanding. Fuck, I'm sure a homeless man would be happy if he won 7 million dollars, but I don't think anyone is arguing this is something that is fantastic and should be praised. If you do think this, again, I'll agree to disagree.

You seem to equate happiness with material possessions and wealth, personally I disagree with this notion strongly. If you go to some of the poorest areas on the planet, for example Africa, India or the slums of Manila, you'll notice a striking thing; people who live with $2 a day are generally happy and able to enjoy their lives, they're helpful and willing to share from the very little they have. Compare this to upper class westerners with 10 times more material wealth than they'll ever need and going to therapy twice a week because of stress and depression. Anecdotal and corny, yes, but maybe something to consider.

Personally I think everyone should be able to be happy, to have basic security, education, healthcare and a fair standard of living, in fact these should be the first and foremost priority of any society.

[wufwugy]

Actually, I would say yes. Maybe I wouldn't use the word desire, but to say they did not "want" those consequences I feel would be wrong. If by desire we mean consciously verbalized to themselves they they did not want "X" consequence of having a child, then of course they probably did not desire it. But to me, most people do not have the perspective to understand what they need, want, and feel, and I'd like to push them in a direction of better understanding that.

Okay, it appears that there is a disconnect of semantics. Even if there isn't, I can't really go much further without a clear definition of what we're discussing.

What I would like to say though is this: I want to have a wife, but I also don't want to have a wife. I want to have a family, but I also don't want a family. There are many things that I want, but many of them do not support each other, and I could go to great length explaining the reasons and pros/cons for my desires, yet I still have little clue as to what I 'really want' with regards to these decisions.

Now, since I clearly have conflicting desires, the decisions I make in these areas will provide me with conflicting feelings, but does that mean that I wanted those feelings and consequences? It doesn't, it means that I compromised for what I considered the greater good. Or it could mean that I just picked a decision and ran with it. It could mean a lot of things

On top of that, the argument that I originally thought you're making (now I'm beginning to think it's a little different) assumed complete information about the consequences of our actions. It's one thing to work with the information you have, but it's an entirely different thing to think that the information you have = all information; and really that was what I was originally arguing, even though I may have misinterpreted and accidentally straw manned your position

I think this is very hard to factually argue either way, but I'll agree to disagree on this point.

Within the context of biology, what I said is correct, especially from an evolutionary perspective. You cannot find a single complex biological organism on the planet that is made 'right' or 'designed optimally' or what have you. The phylogenic tree is made up entirely of genes that evolved only enough to survive. For example: as great as the human eye is, it's actually a shoddy piece of equipment with egregious flaws that cause assloads of problems, and its evolutionary path is nonsensical from an engineer's perspective.

Within the context of biology, which is absolutely relevant to anything about human behavior (which is basically a subset of biology, including other sciences), what we are is merely just how adapted our genes have been to our environments. Our entirely genome is a sort of vestigial organism. Now, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'right', but if you mean it in an abstract sense of how to optimally engage in something, biology doesn't operate under that paradigm

I think this was a very well structured argument and I can't really say I disagree with it. My question would be is it the government that truly needs to do this? Can a private organization do many of the things that you believe the government should be doing?

I'm glad you said this because it ties into a very important misunderstanding of government/regulation/public sector/etc.

Yes, the private organization can regulate, and it does, a lot. The problem with governance exclusively coming from a private organization (special interest) is that it governs in its own best interest, not the populous' best interests. Monarchies and corporatocracies and dictatorships and many others are all governments from the private sector. They are not made up of the people and are not for the benefit of the people, but instead the society is ran by the special individual for their special interests. In these kinds of governments the public sector is very weak. The populous has little power; they can revolt all they want but Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Guardian Council are the ruling private interest, and they naturally will do what they want most, and thus you have a totalitarian theocracy waterlogged in oppression and inhumanities called Iran

Or you could have places like Norway and Sweden which have governments with very strong public sector and public interests which means that the population as a whole benefits, and this directly benefits the individual within the public. Things like higher education, health care, basic shelter and food for all massively benefit the public but don't do much for the private/wealthy. This is seen simply by low crime rates, high literacy rates, etc.

However, private interests are very important for society as a whole. An example is the Federal Reserve, it's privatized and that's a damn good thing too because if monetary policy became whim to Congress then we're fucking fucked. But the Fed does not go without oversight and regulation from the public sector. It is currently quite weak oversight and regulation and we've actually seen this great void of public interests in the Fed and subsequently Wall Street jackknife the US public and global economy

Look at it this way. Modern society has a pretty great consumer kitchen appliance setup. We get workable and relatively affordable product from the private industry, the private industry makes nice profit, and the government regulates consumer protections to a pretty great degree. Our skillets aren't catching on fire, our toasters aren't electrocuting us, and our knives are not chipping off into our food. Now, while private industry does have some degree of self-correction due to competition, it's not nearly as much as they tell us, and history is littered with examples of private industry making a cash grab with a faulty product or not testing product well then lo n behold its consumers get cancer in 15 years.

Private industry is good at making a product and a profit, but they're not good at regulating themselves to make sure that product is safe because if they did they would make lower or negative profit. Definitively, private industry is not self-regulatory; that's why we need public sector governance.

When was the last time you heard of somebody in the US who died because of a contaminated product he purchased at the store? It happens, but do you also remember the ginormous backlash? Well, the extremely low numbers of problems with our food and drug products and the ginormous backlash with most serious problems is entirely because of government agencies like the FDA which are meant to be ran by the public, for the public. I mean we have shitload of agencies working for the public. The FBI, for one. Take a look at the history of serial killers or organized crime. Before the FBI and other agencies were well-established, those two things were pretty much mainstays. FBI beat the shit out of the Mob, which was its own authoritarian pseudo-regime, and it's now virtually impossible to be a successful serial killer due to public agencies like the FBI. These public agencies can be corrupted just like anything, but that's a different issue

Imagine a US without the FDA. A US where somebody could make a killing (literally) by putting Fen-Phen back on the market then running off with their moneybags when everybody realizes they got fucked. A US where a farmer can re-brand DDT and start using that because he needs to make ends meet.

They say in Thailand, if you go to McDonalds, don't eat the lettuce because their agricultural industry has such little oversight that it's not uncommon to get food poisoning from a simple vegetable. I'm very glad I live in a society with some public sector governance

I think this is where I radically differ from a lot of people: I don't think the fact that people are happy is necessarily a good thing. If a child throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get fed chocolate, so his mother gives him chocolate any time he wants, the kid will probably be happy given most scales. To me, happiness is something that is earned, not given. I would'nt want someone to be happy if they were not the ones creating it through a high level of understanding. Fuck, I'm sure a homeless man would be happy if he won 7 million dollars, but I don't think anyone is arguing this is something that is fantastic and should be praised. If you do think this, again, I'll agree to disagree.

I don't disagree with most of this, but you also can't compare happiness on the individual level with happiness of a society. The latter is a fantastic way to evaluate how well a society is running, and the former doesn't represent that at all

It's also not about benefiting individuals directly, but benefiting the populous which itself indirectly benefits the individuals who collectively make up the populous.

While I agree that happiness how you have described it isn't really something that anybody 'deserves', I do wholeheartedly believe that happiness on the collective level is a basic human right. Or at least the absence of unhappiness. I'm not interested in making the individual happy by giving him what he wants, I'm interested in making the collective happy by providing them with equal opportunity to make their lives what they want. Also, even though we've been told that a society ran by the special interests is what benefits equality the most, that notion becomes ridiculous if you simply just look up the definitions of 'special' and 'equal'