Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

If we throw theory in the ditch and go only with data.
There are "anarchist" groups that have historically been very stable cultures whose lives are counted in thousands of years rather than decades.

What they have in common.

1. The don't have property rights.
2. They have tons of leisure time.
3. They get killed/enslaved/displaced by non-egalitarian societies they come in contact with.

You have to keep in mind however those groups are usually rather small and are from ancient tribal societies. It would not work in large industrialized modern societies.

I stated it in my previous post, but I will say it again.

1- They don't need property rights, because resources were abundant. They could obtain whatever they want from nature, not from others.
2- They had tons of leisure time, because resources were abundant. If resources were scarce, they would start forming organizations. Actually they did after some time, and we are here.
3- They got killed/enslaved/displaced by non-egalitarian societies because ''non-egalitarian societies'' had limited resources.

I don't want to hear the tale ''resources are used to build armies, anarchism don't need weapons blabla''. I am talking about medicine, smartphones, PC, air conditioning, sanitation, t shirt...

It is very easy to show respect to other living beings in a resource abundant enviroment. After all, who can expect a dictatorship in Norway or a very libertarian policy in Afghanistan?

Also you completely disregard the fact anarchy was only observed in small communities, not in a global scale. In small communities, everyone can be known. For 7 billion it is impossible, and a person with an unknown identity definetely behaves different to others.

Furthermore, you did not write a single word about the transition. Questions:

-Are you planning to replace smartphones with spears by ''back to the primitive'' attitude? Who will accept that kind of society, and how can you persuade them? Or, how can you provide adequate amount of goods to everyone? (this is a must to keep the system stable)
-How can you eliminate the hierarchy idea from people's minds?
-How can you eliminate religious organizations? Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam... All have hierarchy. In summary, how can you eliminate (if it is possible) religions?

This is not about being ''for'' or ''against'', I am simply questioning applicability.

Last edited by Somberlain on 20 Sep 2012, 1:36 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Their technology and science were primitive.

If living a life of eating nuts and berries and hunting the occasion animal is appealing to you, by all means live it.d

To have technology, a society needs some kind of property laws and related institutions.

ruveyn

There's a nice irony in the image not working (not for me, at least). Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, represented by the 'broken link' gif. Tsk. Needless to say, I disagree with it. Not that, to survive, we first need food and drink and rest, but the order that comes after. I take issue with much of it's descriptiveness, and also any prescriptiveness that may come.

That, if we want to physically survive, it is more necessary to eat food and drink water than to find companionship doesn't make how desperate people can become when denied basic sustenance more 'true' than when they act in a kind and decent way to a dear friend. As I said, in such conditions we do not become 'savage' (of course, savages are not 'savage'), but infantilised. IIRC, you're about 30 years old. If it is our infant self that is more 'true', am I to assume your everyday demeanour is a mask - a veneer - your, say, 3 year old self puts on?

You have an impressively cynical view of humanity. Fortunately for myself and many others, it's simply a view, and others are available. Unfortunately, however, it does have a persuasive power, and too many cynics spoil the broth of life.

First of all, If you insist on continuing with your baseless ad hominem attacks you might want to consider actually disagreeing with what I am saying. I never stated that *all* potential tragedies of the commons would translate into actual tragedies. This only occurs when the commons in unmanaged. In fact, this was the only addition Hardin himself found necessary to include 30 years after posting his original article.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5364/682.full

Second of all, the point of the (not so damned, in my opinion) book is that there are other options for preventing the tragedy of the commons than state solutions and privatization, as self-organizing groups could (often more successfully) manage common pool resources (Ostrom, 1990: 8-28 ; 214-216). Ostrom did not, however, deny the prevalence of actual tragedies, and even devoted the entirety of the book's chapter 5 to real-world examples.

Third of all, it is a non sequitur that game theory and/or rational choice predicts the tragedy of the commons. This only occurs when there are no mechanisms for enforcement. Ostrom herself described how a self-organizing system could provide such an enforcement with her description of the Zanjera irrigation communities in the Phillipines - my personal favourite - (Ostrom, 1990: 82 - 88 ). The fact is - however - that this system succeeded because it managed the rational self-interest of the individuals present (by cleverly assigning the last lots to the unit leaders - See Figure 3.3), not because rational self-interest wasn't present.

In other words, you haven't actually provided evidence *against* rational choice. You have - inadvertently, perhaps - provided evidence *for* it (Popper reply expected).

Summary: If you indeed want to start a crusade against rational choice theory and it's many derivatives, It might be wise to attack areas where it has a poor empirical record (like voting behaviour) instead of areas where it not only performs very well empirically, but also highlights serious political problems. And here I am only sticking to the areas in Ostrom's work. Other examples are: Killing sharks for fins, killing elephants for tusks, deforestation... and the big one... anthropogenic climate change - All prime examples of the predictions of rational choice theory... And if presented with competing explanations here, I would like to point out that Occam is hiding in the shadows... and that he is armed with a razor...



... but since Governing the Commons is clearly a rational choice work (as per my previous direct quotes and references from the book) are you now implying that this book is pseudo-scientific?

Anyway, I have no knowledge (since you didn't even bother to describe them) of the workshops you refer to. I found a candidate, though, in The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University.

However, I fail to see the reasoning (and well as any references) in your argument here, as I - from the very beginning - was referring specifically to Governing the Commons, and not to Elinor Ostrom's work in general. I have made no claims about the development of her ideas after this work, and since I am not a fan of ad hominem reasoning, I fail to see what relevance they hold to the conclusions of the book.

But I cannot get rid of the feeling that I am wasting my time arguing with you (Statement: I must warn you, master. Your previous statement is at risk of being selectively quoted!). And if you hadn't made personal accusations against me (about not having read Ostrom) I would probably have ignored your posts entirely. But I will not sit idly by when being accused of lying.

The use of the word "hacks" about rational choice, the failure of providing alternatives to rational choice in the social sciences and the absence of actual references to studies supporting your view also suggest that you are not really interested in an intelligent discussion about the merits of different approaches in the social sciences. But I claim no privileged access to your thoughts and emotions, so I'll leave it at that.



But to make matters worse, I now see that you have taken up arms against Richard Dawkins as well... Which pretty much makes our holmgang insignificant in comparison.

While acknowledging the risk of extrapolation, I choose to snark: Are the works of William Hamilton and Robert Trivers pseudo-science as well?

Everything based on theory that is in conflict with empirical evidence is pseudo-science
that is the definition of pseudo-science.

Rational choice falls into that category even if there are a lot of people falling for it.
Until the Nash equilibrium actually predicts human behavior then it is pseudo-science and the folks that follow it are chumps. The smarter ones Elinor and Doug rejected it as evidence pilled against it.
The dumb ones keep digging holes hoping the world will change to fit their math.

To think one should except rational choice until something else comes along is silly.
People who work in game theory today (myself included) spend most of our time talking about how it does not work.

Just because folks use it does not mean it works there are not a few scholars who have been building on on the works of Thomas Aquinas for years does that mean I should accept that?

You know, not so long ago, I had a discussion about the idea of anarchy with an extreme left-wing person, that said that anarchy is the only true way of living, because there would be no oppression, no force, no one controlling you. I disagreed. He said something along the lines that of course I would not understand because I am an aligned, assimilated part of society and unable of free thinking. I usually walk away on people who treat eveyone with prejudice, yet expect everyone else to respect their way of living, but this time, I was naughty. I got very close to him, looked him in the eye, and said in a very calm voice, but as menacing as I could: "In a world of anarchy, there would be no laws, right?" He nodded. "There would be nothing forbidden, right?" He said yes, that's why it's so great. "So, if we were in an anarchic society, I could mangle you with my bare hands without feering consequences? I could punch your teeth in, pluck your eyes out and crush your groin with my foot, and nobody would care because it was not forbidden? Count me in!" Then, I turned around and walked away. The look on his face was priceless, and it was one of the greatest moments in my life.
In all seriousness, I think most people who opt for a life in anarchy wouldn't be around to enjoy it for all too long. Freedom and security are two things that cannot exist without the other. With no security, I have no freedom because I had to live in fear. With no freedom, security is futile, because we only needed protection from the ones guarding us. These things have to be in balance.

There are numerous Anarchic societies today they usually live on uncontested land and have murder rates comparable to nice suburban neighborhoods.
An Anarchist is just a man that does not need a policeman to tell him to be a good man.

You are missing the point. If I may put it this way, anarchism is not against law, but against Law. There can be rules in anarchism. A given community would create its own regulations. These norms would, however, be strictly subordinated to the well-being of the people. At the moment, the common thought is that: "Good Law, bad Law, the Law must be applied, the Law must be respected." Law is seen as an end in itself, not a means to achieving other objectives. If, by an oddly frequent chance, a text is made into Law that contradicts the common good, the current process is to change the Law, which is almost impossible for individuals and, in any case, takes a very, very long time. Take, for instance, segregation laws in the United States.

The point of anarchism is to make laws subordinate to the common good and actually determined by the community. These would just be a framework to enable and facilitate interactions, a framework that could be easily adaptable. It also allows for dissenters not to follow a rule that they feel is unjust. Of course, this is the theory; it can be difficult to translate this into detailed practice.

But no, you would very probably not have the right to strange whomsoever you wish in an anarchist society, since everyone will agree that there should be a rule against murder.

Awesome to the max!! I give you an applause for that one.

... but I (and Elinor Ostrom) just provided evidence that rational choice (and the predictions of the Nash equilibrium in particular) *does* in fact predict human behaviour.



Why is what you talk about even relevant to science? Would you be so kind to cite any peer-reviewed articles that actually support your view? And once again: What. Is. Your. Alternative?



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

I also find it amusing that you are very selective about which of my statements you choose to reply to .

historically any community that lacks a centralized mechanism of force (a state) will naturally gravitate toward some form of consensus decision-making and find some way to condemn the wrongdoers

btw Anarchists are no against laws,anarchists simply point out that in our society laws actually don't defend the Weak from the Strong(like most people are trained to believe) but actually is the inverse: the police and military have been often used by the ruling class to smash the lower class,worker protests etc in the name of capitalist property laws

no you(and Ostrom) just provided evidence that neoclassical economics is a pseudoscience: economists have a strong interest in being biased so I must not believe in what they have to say

Last edited by NoPast on 20 Sep 2012, 5:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks humanity was more productive in the Dark Ages than in the Renaissance.

I have no other option but to resort to the classical inquiry known as "what?". If you were perhaps to provide some sort of empirical justification for your views, I might be able to provide some sort of response...