|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 minutes, 8 seconds
|
A syllogism for anarchy 1
#26838934 - 07/22/20 06:00 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I was going to reply in that 'terrorist cops' thread but holy hell I'm just gonna stay out of there. Still, here is my argument about the so-called utopian nature of anarchy - if anyone wants to challenge it:
1st premise: All humans are fallible. 2nd premise: If all humans are fallible, any system of organisation designed and run by humans will be similarly fallible. Conclusion: Therefore any system of 'checks-and-balances' designed to prevent abuse of authority is fallible.
1st premise: If all systems of checks-and-balances designed to prevent abuse of authority are fallible, given enough time every position of authority will be abused. 2nd premise: Abuse of authority is amplified by concentration of authority. Conclusion: Therefore a system of horizontal organizational structure that limits the concentration of authority will be more effective at limiting abuse of authority than a hierarchical organizational structure would.
Basically, my support of anarchy just comes from being a realist - but I'm curious what all you utopians holding out for your benevolent dictatorship think.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm actually completely with you until your final conclusion, but you're going to have to explain what you mean by that better.
I don't believe in any "good" institution. Just in the "least worst" one. I'm an anarchist in spirit actually, (anarchist/gnostic), but in the flesh I simply cannot be with my worldview.
EDIT: I'm definitely not holding out for utopia.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (07/22/20 06:11 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Assuming arguendo that your conclusion is logically sound, it still only addresses one problem with societal structure. It doesn't factor in the problems that society is intended to combat nor does it factor in other problems created by the existence and maintenance of a society. If corruption/abuse of authority is the only problem we care about, the solution is easy: No one has any authority. Problem solved.
But society is intended to address a host of problems that groups of humans encounter when trying to coexist. Scarcity, balancing of rights, utilitarian maximization of good, etc. are all very important issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. I've known you long enough to know that you have thought of all of these, but in your OP, they've all been ignored.
As a result, I'm inviting you to explain how your horizontal distribution of power theory addresses those issues, and if you're willing, contrast and compare the effectiveness of your theory vis a vis these issues with the effectiveness of perhaps the American republic or any other government, existing or historical.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 minutes, 8 seconds
|
|
Are you familiar with the distinction between horizontal and hierarchical organizing? Take a look at the image below - the top one represents hierarchical organizing, the bottom one horizontal organizing.

Under a hierarchical organizational structure, power is concentrated in a small number of individuals at the top who are given the authority to make decisions for those below them. Let's assume one of those people in the image will abuse their authority, it's a bit like playing Russian roulette - if they're one of those at the bottom it won't be much of an issue, but what if that person is the one at top?
Whereas under a horizontal organizational structure, the basic unit is the affinity group. Each affinity group generally consists of a small number of people who directly share their lives together (as you can see, there can be overlap with other affinity groups). Each affinity group is autonomous and can act on their own to solve problems in their community, but they can also cooperate with other affinity groups when necessary to achieve more ambitious goals.
Once again, let's assume one of the people in the image would abuse their authority - it doesn't matter who, in every instance the authority of the abusive person is significantly limited. Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups. This is what I mean when I say that horizontal organizational structures are more effective at limiting abuse of authority than hierarchical organizational structures.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 minutes, 8 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26839085 - 07/22/20 07:14 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Assuming arguendo that your conclusion is logically sound, it still only addresses one problem with societal structure. It doesn't factor in the problems that society is intended to combat nor does it factor in other problems created by the existence and maintenance of a society. If corruption/abuse of authority is the only problem we care about, the solution is easy: No one has any authority. Problem solved.
But society is intended to address a host of problems that groups of humans encounter when trying to coexist. Scarcity, balancing of rights, utilitarian maximization of good, etc. are all very important issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. I've known you long enough to know that you have thought of all of these, but in your OP, they've all been ignored.
As a result, I'm inviting you to explain how your horizontal distribution of power theory addresses those issues, and if you're willing, contrast and compare the effectiveness of your theory vis a vis these issues with the effectiveness of perhaps the American republic or any other government, existing or historical.
True - I've only made the argument that horizontal organization is better at limiting abuse of authority, not that limiting abusive authority necessarily leads to the overall best results. I probably won't be able to reduce my response into another syllogism, but I definitely have some thoughts to share.
But before I get all caught up in my reply and forget to eat, I'm gonna make something to eat.
--------------------
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,277
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 15 hours
|
|
I actually just wrote a post summarizing the evolution of political theory and the evolution of the state. You ought to read Hobbes.
My fiancee is Venezuelan. A perfect example of why you hate governments, no? The government has mostly abandoned the people and they're no longer the greatest threat, the gangs are. If you'd like to see anarchy in action, I invite you to watch this video from 45 minutes outside of my fiancee's hometown: (EXTREMELY GRAPHIC: anarchy). If you're having trouble watching, that's a man who is accused of being a snitch near a gold mine in north eastern Venezuela. First they cut his tongue off which they make him chew up to swallow. Then they cut his fingers off which they also make him chew on. At the end, there is a still frame of him with no fingers, his tongue cut off and both of his eyes gouged out. They left him alive to suffer. My fiancee's step-dad is a paramedic and is regularly taken to these locations with a hood over his head where he's been forced to save the lives of torture victims for them to presumably be tortured more.
You see, when there is no overarching power, there is no one to limit the growth of powers. Sometimes, perhaps frequently, those powers are driven by psychopaths whose main goal is greed. Yes, governments are fallible and have created many atrocities, but anarchy also leads to oppression and evils just the same.
--------------------
Take a look at my journal
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 21 minutes, 57 seconds
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups.
My biggest problem is with this right here.
In the modern world, a small group of people, corrupt or not, is able to exert their will onto others using technological advantage.
Just going with a "real world" analogy. Let's look at international politics. You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries. Let's not even think of corruption, that's besides the point. There are many countries that openly exert their will unto others through military and economic force.
What do you do, when one of your "affinity groups" has nukes?
More importantly, what do you do when one of your "affinity groups" decides that climate change is bullshit, and slowly poisons the entire world?
In other words, I think your idea makes sense, as long as affinity groups are not able to significantly influence one another. However, that is not possible in the modern world.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 30 minutes, 41 seconds
|
|
From what I understand of your organization pics:
1. You seem to argue in horizontal organizing that the structure itself places mathematical limits on the abuse of power.
2. What of the power vacuum that would manifest, when one abuses it within the affinity group? Most voids are met with violence and/or when someone loses control of something ..... the desire to pounce on the opportunity, for more power!
A hierarchy can be a house of cards but I do see horizontal organizing not immune to backroom deals/cutthroat mentality to maintain the horizontial structure.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (07/22/20 08:02 PM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm confused by one major thing.
How is a "horizontal system" not just another system of checks and balances?
The pyramid is too basic of a structure to resemble America's government. I would argue we're far more horizontal in the first place. Not just with the 3 branches of government, but with federal and state... in particular the latter where all 50 states get to play by their own custom set of rules within rules... and then COUNTY rules within states! (Like house rules for a board game to fit the needs of the group.)
I can't think of a third possibility... either you have one human in charge of a group, or *multiple* humans in charge of a group, ranging from two to infinity. In this second group of power structures, everything is checks and balances, is it not?
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (07/22/20 10:39 PM)
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 32 minutes, 34 seconds
|
|
This is from the article linked in your post.
Quote:
You and your friends already constitute an affinity group, the essential building block of this model. An affinity group is a circle of friends who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea is that people who already know and trust each other should work together to respond immediately, intelligently, and flexibly to emerging situations.
With all respect, that's just laughable.
Honestly, have you never come across any bad people? Dishonest people? Dumb greedy people? Friends that have lied to your face? People that you thought were your friend and then steal all your money and put it up their arm? That's a serious question as I've met plenty of them and this utopian peaceful anarchist idea just does not make any sense to me at all, sorry.
I'll gladly settle for a shithouse democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship over mob rule any day. Any day.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
--------------------
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 32 minutes, 34 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26840933 - 07/23/20 03:50 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Mmmm and until there's a massive brain shift in the way things are done hardly anyone in the general population could even understand how a peaceful anarchistic society is supposed to function. Like I'm willing to listen but I still don't get it??
It's one thing to point out the benefits of such an idea but how does society get to that place?
Would people like Enlil need to retrain? There'd be no need for lawyers in this utopian world, or police or security forces... like I just don't get it.
|
Rapjack
Oat Soakin' Toker


Registered: 05/15/17
Posts: 483
Loc: Elsewhere
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I love horizontal power structures in small organizations of consenting individuals. But what of the people that are flat out too lazy or unwilling to participate? My theory is they'd align themselves with whoever the biggest warlord in the area is. It's much easier to take or force tribute from communities rather than build. His troops become stronger than the farmers. A good warlord then patrols the roads for highwaymen, the communities in his control thrive because no more threats to trade. Other communities join on their own accord to receive that protection and prosperity. Fast forward a couple hundred years and the land is divided into empires again.
Anarchy assumes everyone wants independence but I don't think that's really the case sadly. I think average people mainly want security and ease, they'd join whatever large group in the area promises the best protection.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Rapjack]
#26842142 - 07/24/20 07:44 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Antifa claims a horizontal power structure and I find them and their behavior contemptible.
Would you assert a new world with a horizontal power structure resembles Antifa or did you have another pool of humans I'm not aware of that are more mature and put together to draw from to create this new world?
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 30 minutes, 41 seconds
|
|
Horizontial organizing is inferior(powerwise) to a hierarchy. If it was the most efficient, all of tbe militaries of the world would ditch the typical chain of command paradigm.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 minutes, 8 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#26842386 - 07/24/20 10:13 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I just wanted to let everyone know I've read your replies and I intend to respond to each in order. Enlil posed a doozy and I'm tackling that one first but I also think solidifying my argument for anarchy is a good place to start anyways, before turning to the more specific criticisms.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Horizontial organizing is inferior(powerwise) to a hierarchy. If it was the most efficient, all of tbe militaries of the world would ditch the typical chain of command paradigm.
What is most efficient for a war effort isn't necessarily the same as what is most efficient/better for societal governance. After all, militaries are run as dictatorships. If that's the model for societies, then societies should all be dictatorships.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Rapjack
Oat Soakin' Toker


Registered: 05/15/17
Posts: 483
Loc: Elsewhere
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I just wanted to let everyone know I've read your replies and I intend to respond to each in order. Enlil posed a doozy and I'm tackling that one first but I also think solidifying my argument for anarchy is a good place to start anyways, before turning to the more specific criticisms.
Sweet, I look forward to my reply. That's always been a sticking point for me and I wonder what the solution is, if any. Informed responding allows you to flesh out your philosophy more too!
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 30 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26842722 - 07/24/20 01:40 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Thats valid. Would you agree that horizontal organizing is more inferior(again, regarding power distribution and application)hierarchy..... due to its bilateral nature?
Agreement/acceptance/trust needs to be a two way street in horizontal organizing, whereas vertical organizing does not require as much.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (07/24/20 01:40 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#26842831 - 07/24/20 02:45 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Inferior or superior at what, specifically? There are many different core issues that any successful social structure must address. I'm certainly not the guy with a perfect solution. Our system isn't it. I doubt shivas is going to articulate a perfect solution either, but I'm open to exploring affirmatives.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|