Skepticism

[Aranfan]

Pathetic.

How so?

When you are on the same side as the sociopaths, addicts and copycat cultists it doesn't strike you as being pathetic?

The whole argument relies on that others do not actually do what you "think" is the reasonable thing to do. To be able to get to the level of eductation where such an argument exists you depend on civilization. For civilization to evolve you need cooperation. For cooperation to work you need to have rules or structure. etc
So for you to be able to give such a blatantly anti-society, anti-civilization, anti-whatever argument. You rely on not being killed outright. Which relies on everyone else having morals (or adhere to the social stigma rules) that stop them from killing you even if they feel you are a threat to their well being.

So for true anarchists or moral nihilist to exist they rely on the rest of us not to do what they are advocating.

Because I can bet you that if you give as poor an argument IRL as you do here there has been plenty of people who have had to stop themselves from hurting (or killing) you.

And that was just the wordly answer. For the philosophical discussion I can't even be bothered. As I said if you do a quick search on this forum you will find plenty of threads which has already covered this back and forth.

Very rare is the cultist that will say I should do whatever I want, instead of worshiping their whatever. If you think people can't cooperate on their own and of their own accord, then you need to brush up on your Kropotkin and Trivers. Unless your saying that if the police and military were disbanded (You found out God was dead) tomorrow you'd go around killing and raping people. Cause we need prisons (Hell) to keep the potential criminals (sinners) in line. Yes?

[Aranfan]

What if I ask you whether it's wrong for me to push a third party off a cliff?

Then you are faced with having to ask me "Do you want them to die?" and if the answer is "yes," saying that it's OK for me to push them off a cliff. But you are also faced with having to ask the third party "Do you want to die?" and if their answer is "no," saying it is NOT OK for me to push them off a cliff.

Thus your argument would seem contradict itself, saying that it is both wrong and not-wrong to push the person off the cliff.

I really don't think you've thought this through.

I would personally evaluate the pusher in the wrong in the case you outline here. Because I personally don't like coercion and the pusher seems to be coercing. The pushee will likely agree with me, and the pusher will likely disagree, but that's fine since I'm apparently neither in this scenario.

But how is that even consistent? How can "do what you think best" be a viable overarching law if it doesn't settle disagreements between people about what ought to be done?

If you ask Alice whether she wants X to happen and she says "yes," and if you can ask Bob whether he wants X to happen and he says "no," how are you justified in picking Bob's opinion over Alice's? Just because you happen to feel that Bob's idea is more in line with what you'd like to see happen, personally?

Do you just completely ignore this notion that every individual should pursue their own preferences whenever their preferences happen not to match yours? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense.

In that case, you aren't really saying "everyone should do what they think is right." You're saying "everyone should do what I think is right, but I can't be bothered to explain why I think it's right." That's contemptible. And again, it suggests that you either haven't thought this through, or you expect everyone around you to blindly and uncritically accept your views on ethics even though you aren't willing to examine them rigorously.

Bob vs Alice, yes. If I perceive Bob to be in the right, I can no more doubt Bob is in the right than doubt that I see Bob and not a bunch of fairies in a Bob suit.

On settling disagreements, if Bob or I can convince Alice not to throw Bob off the cliff then problem solved, if not then he can struggle and I can try to drag them away from the cliff. So, guile if possible and force if necessary.

I'm not saying everyone should do what I think is right, I said I will try to make them believe it is in their self-interest to do what I think is right.

If you want to keep the law of non-contradiction, then note that Alice pushing Bob off a cliff is both not-wrong and wrong in different senses. Its wrong in the sense of what Bob wants, and is not-wrong in the sense of what Alice wants.

Error checking? I talk to people about what I want, and pick what seems useful from their added perspective.

But there's no real mechanism here for people to talk to you about your choice of priorities. Or about how to ignore things you "shouldn't" want in favor of things you "should." And that's a critical concept in ethics.

Consider a case like "I want chocolate, but I also don't want to weigh 135 kilograms." Here, the desire for chocolate is a short-term desire at war with the long-term desire to avoid being grossly overweight. I have to pick one; I can't just arbitrarily say "I want X to happen so I will work towards X."

That requires a level of critical self-analysis, an ability to prioritize short-term or long-term happiness. And I don't see that ability anywhere in the improvised "ethics" you're promoting, Aranfan.

No mechanism for people to talk to me? They don't got mouths? Chocolate vs not weighing 135kg, how about working out? No wait, that doesn't work because muscle weighs more than fat. But if my goal is actually "not be a fatass" then it works.

[Simon_Jester]

Let me get this straight, Aranfan.

You look at a Czarist-era Russian anarchist's theories, and a biologist's papers on how altruistic traits can (not will, can) evolve. And you judge this sufficient counterevidence to outweigh the countless examples of societies throughout history collapsing when government was removed, resulting in mass misery and death.

Also, for someone who likes to cite obscure authors, you missed the point of the "cultist" reference surprisingly widely. The "cult" in question is Crowley's, him being the "do what thou wilt" type.

But how is that even consistent? How can "do what you think best" be a viable overarching law if it doesn't settle disagreements between people about what ought to be done?

If you ask Alice whether she wants X to happen and she says "yes," and if you can ask Bob whether he wants X to happen and he says "no," how are you justified in picking Bob's opinion over Alice's? Just because you happen to feel that Bob's idea is more in line with what you'd like to see happen, personally?

Do you just completely ignore this notion that every individual should pursue their own preferences whenever their preferences happen not to match yours? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense.

In that case, you aren't really saying "everyone should do what they think is right." You're saying "everyone should do what I think is right, but I can't be bothered to explain why I think it's right." That's contemptible. And again, it suggests that you either haven't thought this through, or you expect everyone around you to blindly and uncritically accept your views on ethics even though you aren't willing to examine them rigorously.

Bob vs Alice, yes. If I perceive Bob to be in the right, I can no more doubt Bob is in the right than doubt that I see Bob and not a bunch of fairies in a Bob suit.

On settling disagreements, if Bob or I can convince Alice not to throw Bob off the cliff then problem solved, if not then he can struggle and I can try to drag them away from the cliff. So, guile if possible and force if necessary.

I'm not saying everyone should do what I think is right, I said I will try to make them believe it is in their self-interest to do what I think is right.

How is the one not logically equivalent to the other?

If you don't think others should do what you think is right, why would you ever try to get anyone do something you don't think they should do, whether by force, persuasion, or any other means?

If you do think others should do what you think is right, how does that square with voluntarist ethics? How can you have a moral system where every person has the right to decide what they should do, without renouncing the effort to try to get others to obey you?

But there's no real mechanism here for people to talk to you about your choice of priorities. Or about how to ignore things you "shouldn't" want in favor of things you "should." And that's a critical concept in ethics.

Consider a case like "I want chocolate, but I also don't want to weigh 135 kilograms." Here, the desire for chocolate is a short-term desire at war with the long-term desire to avoid being grossly overweight. I have to pick one; I can't just arbitrarily say "I want X to happen so I will work towards X."

That requires a level of critical self-analysis, an ability to prioritize short-term or long-term happiness. And I don't see that ability anywhere in the improvised "ethics" you're promoting, Aranfan.

No mechanism for people to talk to me? They don't got mouths? Chocolate vs not weighing 135kg, how about working out? No wait, that doesn't work because muscle weighs more than fat. But if my goal is actually "not be a fatass" then it works.

It is impractical to reach a weight of 135 kg by working out, unless one has truly absurd genetics or abuses steroids. That aside...

What I mean by "no mechanism" is no mechanism within the ethical system for reconsidering priorities. One cannot ask "is it right for me to desire X?" when all concept of right and wrong boils down to "is it in line with my desires?"

There is no such thing as instilling a desire for things that an outside observer might find praiseworthy, when that would constitute an outsider coming in and making over your ethical framework in their image, which violates (by changing) your desires, and is therefore "wrong" in your frame of reference.

I mean yes, I can physically do these things, but it would be wrong for me to do them in a voluntarist system, just as it would be wrong for the government to threaten to kill you if you do things that displease it.

[Aranfan]

Let me get this straight, Aranfan.

You look at a Czarist-era Russian anarchist's theories, and a biologist's papers on how altruistic traits can (not will, can) evolve. And you judge this sufficient counterevidence to outweigh the countless examples of societies throughout history collapsing when government was removed, resulting in mass misery and death.

Also, for someone who likes to cite obscure authors, you missed the point of the "cultist" reference surprisingly widely. The "cult" in question is Crowley's, him being the "do what thou wilt" type.

Nothing so idiotic. Of course if the society has become full of people who can't do anything without being told, then it'll fall apart if the bosses are suddenly removed. But it is evidence that bosses are not strictly required. A society can function quite well without institutionalized bosses. And to nip your probable counter in the bud, there is a large difference between the kind of respect commanded by Einstein in the Physics community and the kind of respect Lysenko commanded in the soviet agricultural community. I have very few problems with Einsteins, and many with Lysenkos.

But how is that even consistent? How can "do what you think best" be a viable overarching law if it doesn't settle disagreements between people about what ought to be done?

If you ask Alice whether she wants X to happen and she says "yes," and if you can ask Bob whether he wants X to happen and he says "no," how are you justified in picking Bob's opinion over Alice's? Just because you happen to feel that Bob's idea is more in line with what you'd like to see happen, personally?

Do you just completely ignore this notion that every individual should pursue their own preferences whenever their preferences happen not to match yours? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense.

In that case, you aren't really saying "everyone should do what they think is right." You're saying "everyone should do what I think is right, but I can't be bothered to explain why I think it's right." That's contemptible. And again, it suggests that you either haven't thought this through, or you expect everyone around you to blindly and uncritically accept your views on ethics even though you aren't willing to examine them rigorously.

Bob vs Alice, yes. If I perceive Bob to be in the right, I can no more doubt Bob is in the right than doubt that I see Bob and not a bunch of fairies in a Bob suit.

On settling disagreements, if Bob or I can convince Alice not to throw Bob off the cliff then problem solved, if not then he can struggle and I can try to drag them away from the cliff. So, guile if possible and force if necessary.

I'm not saying everyone should do what I think is right, I said I will try to make them believe it is in their self-interest to do what I think is right.

How is the one not logically equivalent to the other?

If you don't think others should do what you think is right, why would you ever try to get anyone do something you don't think they should do, whether by force, persuasion, or any other means?

If you do think others should do what you think is right, how does that square with voluntarist ethics? How can you have a moral system where every person has the right to decide what they should do, without renouncing the effort to try to get others to obey you?

What I want is imperative to me, it is not imperative to anyone else. Hence why I described myself as a subjectivist.

But there's no real mechanism here for people to talk to you about your choice of priorities. Or about how to ignore things you "shouldn't" want in favor of things you "should." And that's a critical concept in ethics.

Consider a case like "I want chocolate, but I also don't want to weigh 135 kilograms." Here, the desire for chocolate is a short-term desire at war with the long-term desire to avoid being grossly overweight. I have to pick one; I can't just arbitrarily say "I want X to happen so I will work towards X."

That requires a level of critical self-analysis, an ability to prioritize short-term or long-term happiness. And I don't see that ability anywhere in the improvised "ethics" you're promoting, Aranfan.

No mechanism for people to talk to me? They don't got mouths? Chocolate vs not weighing 135kg, how about working out? No wait, that doesn't work because muscle weighs more than fat. But if my goal is actually "not be a fatass" then it works.

It is impractical to reach a weight of 135 kg by working out, unless one has truly absurd genetics or abuses steroids. That aside...

What I mean by "no mechanism" is no mechanism within the ethical system for reconsidering priorities. One cannot ask "is it right for me to desire X?" when all concept of right and wrong boils down to "is it in line with my desires?"

There is no such thing as instilling a desire for things that an outside observer might find praiseworthy, when that would constitute an outsider coming in and making over your ethical framework in their image, which violates (by changing) your desires, and is therefore "wrong" in your frame of reference.

I mean yes, I can physically do these things, but it would be wrong for me to do them in a voluntarist system, just as it would be wrong for the government to threaten to kill you if you do things that displease it.

Ah, I usually work with pounds, not kilograms.

Your ethical system describes how language works? Yeah, I know, not what you meant. But unless all your desires are in accord with each other, then the prioritization of desires means there is a reconsideration mechanism. And the desires may be re-prioritized as well.

[Samuel]

But it is evidence that bosses are not strictly required.

Yeah, if society is small enough to operate by kinship ties. Once you get past that you need a reason not to kill each other and that requires someone or some group to have a monopoly on force.

A society can function quite well without institutionalized bosses.

How? Are all decisions made by majority vote?

And to nip your probable counter in the bud, there is a large difference between the kind of respect commanded by Einstein in the Physics community and the kind of respect Lysenko commanded in the soviet agricultural community.

Except science deals with modeling reality. Bosses generally deal with allocating resources. There is not one guideline you can use for all cases- if there was, you wouldn't need layers of management.

[Aranfan]

But it is evidence that bosses are not strictly required.

Yeah, if society is small enough to operate by kinship ties. Once you get past that you need a reason not to kill each other and that requires someone or some group to have a monopoly on force.

Which is why there were no spontaneous truces or soccer games in WWI, oh wait.

A society can function quite well without institutionalized bosses.

How? Are all decisions made by majority vote?

There are a variety of possible systems. Quite a few of them worked very well in Spain.

And to nip your probable counter in the bud, there is a large difference between the kind of respect commanded by Einstein in the Physics community and the kind of respect Lysenko commanded in the soviet agricultural community.

Except science deals with modeling reality. Bosses generally deal with allocating resources. There is not one guideline you can use for all cases- if there was, you wouldn't need layers of management.

If you think authority by competence isn't preferable to institutionalized authority, then I would like to point you to all the mad kings.

[Serafina]

Okay, let's toss the red herrings aside and get straight to the idiocy:

But it is evidence that bosses are not strictly required. A society can function quite well without institutionalized bosses. And to nip your probable counter in the bud, there is a large difference between the kind of respect commanded by Einstein in the Physics community and the kind of respect Lysenko commanded in the soviet agricultural community. I have very few problems with Einsteins, and many with Lysenkos.

No. Not even small societies can function completely without institutionalized leadership.

Leadership is in fact an evolved trait - if a social group has to tackle a complex task that requires coordination, someone has to do the coordinating. You could evolve that sort of coordination as purely instinctive, and many animals did - but that is not sufficient if you have to be highly adaptive, and of course that evolution takes a lot of time.
For example, the hunting behavior of group predators is instinctive to a good degree. But that is only good for one thing - hunting. It's not good enough for more complex tasks. And even for just hunting, they often have a leadership figure.

For nearly every feat of civilisation, you need coordination. Even if everyone does his job and works hard and does not take resources for himself, it still needs coordination to build a building.
Such a form of flexible coordination can ONLY be provided by having a leadership. We can observe such leadership in every social community that has to tackle difficult tasks.
Thus, humanity evolved for leadership, since leadership was highly beneficial.



Note that this is not an appeal to evolution, just a refutation to yours and an explanation why leadership is required.
You will not find any form of stable society without some kind of leadership. And since more complex tasks require more coordination, you need more coordinators - more leadership. Modern society is incredibly complex, thus we require very specialised and large amounts of leadership for it. You can't have one without the other.

[Simon_Jester]

Aranfan, your notion of sociology is based too much on specific instances. You're taking a hundred examples of societies collapsing into warlordism and wave them all away with "but... but... Barcelona 1937!" or something along those lines. As such, your ideas about the non-necessity of government and "rule by competence" or the like are inherently bankrupt. They are entirely indifferent to questions of evidence, or to the applicability of that evidence.

It is not enough to prove that somewhere in the universe a society has avoided total collapse for a few years without a well defined government. If you wish to establish that this is actually a viable social model, you must show that it can work consistently, even in the face of adversity. That it does in fact outperform political systems that are, you know, actually designed to govern people, as the scientific community is not.

[Aranfan]

Okay, let's toss the red herrings aside and get straight to the idiocy:

But it is evidence that bosses are not strictly required. A society can function quite well without institutionalized bosses. And to nip your probable counter in the bud, there is a large difference between the kind of respect commanded by Einstein in the Physics community and the kind of respect Lysenko commanded in the soviet agricultural community. I have very few problems with Einsteins, and many with Lysenkos.

No. Not even small societies can function completely without institutionalized leadership.

Leadership is in fact an evolved trait - if a social group has to tackle a complex task that requires coordination, someone has to do the coordinating. You could evolve that sort of coordination as purely instinctive, and many animals did - but that is not sufficient if you have to be highly adaptive, and of course that evolution takes a lot of time.
For example, the hunting behavior of group predators is instinctive to a good degree. But that is only good for one thing - hunting. It's not good enough for more complex tasks. And even for just hunting, they often have a leadership figure.

For nearly every feat of civilisation, you need coordination. Even if everyone does his job and works hard and does not take resources for himself, it still needs coordination to build a building.
Such a form of flexible coordination can ONLY be provided by having a leadership. We can observe such leadership in every social community that has to tackle difficult tasks.
Thus, humanity evolved for leadership, since leadership was highly beneficial.



Note that this is not an appeal to evolution, just a refutation to yours and an explanation why leadership is required.
You will not find any form of stable society without some kind of leadership. And since more complex tasks require more coordination, you need more coordinators - more leadership. Modern society is incredibly complex, thus we require very specialised and large amounts of leadership for it. You can't have one without the other.

The only part of this post I disagree with is the part about requiring institutionalized leadership. Certainly, if a doctor tells me what is needed, in his informed and educated opinion, to prevent my untimely death, I'll do what he says. I won't do it just because he wears a lab coat though, but because he is informed and educated in the field. One of the terrible things about our language is that being an authority and being in authority can be so easily confused. Leadership based on Competence I don't have a problem with, leadership based on "he's the leader!" I have problems with.

[Serafina]

Aand you didn't get what i am talking about. The situation you are talking about has nothing to do with leadership, by the way.

Suppose your community wants to plan storages to get trough the winter. You NEED someone in charge, someone who has the power to make people do what he says if necessary.
Why? Because otherwise, you end up with one huge mess. That goes for all communal projects - and all communities. Every known human community has at least someone who is in charge in certain situations, even if they don't need him always.

Yes, ideally the leader is qualified. But we do not put him in charge because he is qualified, but because we need someone in charge. In fact, a leader has to be qualified to be a leader. It's better to have a qualified leader with little of the necessary knowledge for the project and then to give him advisers who ARE thusly qualified, than to put those advisers in charge if they have no leadership qualities.


It seems to me that you can't see any picture beyond your own little world (hence your pathetic non-example for leadership). The ability to organize is a qualification on it's own, and thus we put people with it in charge when we need to - which is very often the case in any large society.

[Aranfan]

Certainly. Groups cannot think, only individuals can, and if each individual goes their own way then there is no group. Yet if I don't want the military segregated by skin color, why should I accept Woodrow Wilson's leadership? Institutionalized leadership is obeyed because they are the boss. Rather, leadership should be obeyed because the obeyer thinks it'll be the best way to achieve a given end. If the leadership is not able to be called to account, then the follower gets screwed. And leadership has problems on a larger scale. Leaders need information, but people are finite and that means bureaucracy and loss of, possibly vital, detail in the transition from local conditions to headquarter decisions.

[Serafina]

Still on that "he should not be obeyed just because he is the boss"-trip, eh?
Guess what, moron - YES HE SHOULD, otherwise leadership does NOT work. You have to do what the person in charge says BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS IN CHARGE. Fuck, that's almost a tautology.
You also completely ignore the concept of group benefit. You do not get to choose which leader you obey and which you disobey - that would render the entire concept pointless. In order for leadership (which we need for society) to work, it HAS to be mandatory, without individual choice.
If you want a choice, go and vote. Or demonstrate, or become politically active. But just saying "i disagree, hence i disobey", while right on certain extreme issues, is utterly flawed as a general principle.

Now you have a point when you say that we should put competent people in charge. I totally agree with that - and nobody disagreed with that.


Your arguments and your worldview are utterly childish. You sound like the average 15-year old teenager who rants against authority. You totally ignore the needs of a society, you are totally incapable of understanding how leadership works, you failt to grasp basic concepts about humans, you do not comprehend anything what has been said to you.

You have one good point - that competent people should be in positions of leadership. But no one has disagreed with that, so you get no points for that either. The rest is just utterly useless.

[Aranfan]

Still on that "he should not be obeyed just because he is the boss"-trip, eh?
Guess what, moron - YES HE SHOULD, otherwise leadership does NOT work. You have to do what the person in charge says BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS IN CHARGE. Fuck, that's almost a tautology.
You also completely ignore the concept of group benefit. You do not get to choose which leader you obey and which you disobey - that would render the entire concept pointless. In order for leadership (which we need for society) to work, it HAS to be mandatory, without individual choice.
If you want a choice, go and vote. Or demonstrate, or become politically active. But just saying "i disagree, hence i disobey", while right on certain extreme issues, is utterly flawed as a general principle.

Now you have a point when you say that we should put competent people in charge. I totally agree with that - and nobody disagreed with that.


Your arguments and your worldview are utterly childish. You sound like the average 15-year old teenager who rants against authority. You totally ignore the needs of a society, you are totally incapable of understanding how leadership works, you failt to grasp basic concepts about humans, you do not comprehend anything what has been said to you.

You have one good point - that competent people should be in positions of leadership. But no one has disagreed with that, so you get no points for that either. The rest is just utterly useless.

So Ill Duce should be obeyed because he's Ill Duce, and not because he'll make the trains run on time or make Italy great again? Should the leaders of a labor union, formed for the purpose of fighting the bosses for better conditions, be blindly obeyed even if they start cooperating with the bosses to enrich themselves at the expense of the unionists? Should the rank and file of the NRA have no option but acquiescence if the leaders started steering the group into a pro-gun control stance?


Groups are formed to accomplish something. If the leaders start to prioritize their power in the group, or the group's existence, over the original goal, then they should be able to be called to account.

[PeZook]

So Ill Duce should be obeyed because he's Ill Duce, and not because he'll make the trains run on time or make Italy great again? Should the leaders of a labor union, formed for the purpose of fighting the bosses for better conditions, be blindly obeyed even if they start cooperating with the bosses to enrich themselves at the expense of the unionists? Should the rank and file of the NRA have no option but acquiescence if the leaders started steering the group into a pro-gun control stance?

Did anybody in this thread actually advocate that a leader must necessarily be an absolute dictator to be obeyed with no recourse available to the people he commands? Because that paragraph above sure sounds like a strawman...

What everyone seems to actually say is that you don't get to disregard governing authority by your say-so, since that ineitably leads to anarchy. That's why if a cop searches your home without a warrant, you don't get to shoot the cop: you go to court and have him fired, imprisoned or whatever. This is also why, say, the Dakota tribes could vote to have a disliked chieftain removed or changed, but if a warrior just went down and killed him, he'd be executed. Extrapolate upwards, since that is all applicable to today's societies.

And so on. The point is, in order to avoid anarchy, even very small groups institutionalize their leadership over time. Poorly organized groups don't allow for recourse for the governed, and rarely survive for long. Well-organized groups provide institutions that are supposed to prevent abuse of power, and can survive for a very long time, but they still need the people in power to be able to do their jobs without allowing everyone who disagrees to instantly opt out: who would pay taxes in that case?

Groups are formed to accomplish something. If the leaders start to prioritize their power in the group, or the group's existence, over the original goal, then they should be able to be called to account.

So you do get it, it would seem. So why the obtuse insistence on strawmanning everybody else?

[Serafina]

You are a moron.
NO ONE said that a leader should not be accountable for his or her actions!
In fact, i repedeately said that he should be accountable for his actions.

What you are arguing for is not accountability - it's "i can disobey leadership whenever i feel like it". That would render the entire concept moot. When a leader does something that seems questionable to you, you have no right to disobey - because you are likely less informed than him. However, you have a right to inquire and protest.
Only under extreme circumstances when the leaders actions are clearly immoral you get to disobey direct orders. (or you can just quit your job in civil life). Those are by definition extraordinary circumstances and not applicable in general.

Your argument is entirely baseless. No one has been arguing against the valid part (accountability and qualification of leadership) of it, but your main point is still utterly retarded.

[Aranfan]

So Ill Duce should be obeyed because he's Ill Duce, and not because he'll make the trains run on time or make Italy great again? Should the leaders of a labor union, formed for the purpose of fighting the bosses for better conditions, be blindly obeyed even if they start cooperating with the bosses to enrich themselves at the expense of the unionists? Should the rank and file of the NRA have no option but acquiescence if the leaders started steering the group into a pro-gun control stance?

Did anybody in this thread actually advocate that a leader must necessarily be an absolute dictator to be obeyed with no recourse available to the people he commands? Because that paragraph above sure sounds like a strawman...

I was asking if "the boss must be obeyed because they are the boss" should be taken to it's logical conclusion.

What everyone seems to actually say is that you don't get to disregard governing authority by your say-so, since that ineitably leads to anarchy. That's why if a cop searches your home without a warrant, you don't get to shoot the cop: you go to court and have him fired, imprisoned or whatever. This is also why, say, the Dakota tribes could vote to have a disliked chieftain removed or changed, but if a warrior just went down and killed him, he'd be executed. Extrapolate upwards, since that is all applicable to today's societies.

Going to court is all well and good so long as the institution of the court is respected by all involved. But as the contrasting examples of the Cherokee and the Seminoles show, sometimes violence is the only recourse to defend yourselves. Not to say that violence shouldn't be the last resort, it's so expensive in every sense that it should be, but if that last resort is infeasible then it isn't resortable at all.

Also, anarchy does not mean chaos. It means "without rulers", which is different from "social disintegration". Anarchists are not against authority per se, but against unquestioned authority, and question things others say shouldn't be so.

And so on. The point is, in order to avoid anarchy, even very small groups institutionalize their leadership over time. Poorly organized groups don't allow for recourse for the governed, and rarely survive for long. Well-organized groups provide institutions that are supposed to prevent abuse of power, and can survive for a very long time, but they still need the people in power to be able to do their jobs without allowing everyone who disagrees to instantly opt out: who would pay taxes in that case?

If the people of Freetown Christiana don't want to pay taxes because they neither want nor assent to Denmark's "protection" then on what grounds would the government of Denmark be justified in sending in tanks to force them to pay taxes (which happened)? If an ancient stone age tribe in the Amazon has recently been discovered in the territory Brazil claims, then should they be jailed for failing to pay taxes?

When you get right down to it, government taxes and mob protection money are very similar creatures. As to how things like schools and fire departments would be funded without taxes? Volunteer contributions would likely be sufficient in the absence of taxes constantly draining everyone's funds, volunteer fire departments lasted quite a long time in England, and various postal services competed pretty effectively against the US postal service for a time even though the US put a tax on private mail carriers that exceeded their own cost for providing the service (three cent tax per letter on carrying mail IIRC, when it cost the US two cents per letter on average).

Groups are formed to accomplish something. If the leaders start to prioritize their power in the group, or the group's existence, over the original goal, then they should be able to be called to account.

So you do get it, it would seem. So why the obtuse insistence on strawmanning everybody else?

I have been saying that most current organizational structures are designed to make it very, very difficult for the rank-and-file to call the leadership to account. I have been advocating organizational structures where the rank-and-file can call leadership to account at any time not because I think such an ability would be constantly used, I don't think people are generally that stupid, but because the possibility of getting called to account has to be a credible threat to the leadership in order to keep them in line.

You are a moron.
NO ONE said that a leader should not be accountable for his or her actions!
In fact, i repedeately said that he should be accountable for his actions.

What you are arguing for is not accountability - it's "i can disobey leadership whenever i feel like it". That would render the entire concept moot. When a leader does something that seems questionable to you, you have no right to disobey - because you are likely less informed than him. However, you have a right to inquire and protest.
Only under extreme circumstances when the leaders actions are clearly immoral you get to disobey direct orders. (or you can just quit your job in civil life). Those are by definition extraordinary circumstances and not applicable in general.

Your argument is entirely baseless. No one has been arguing against the valid part (accountability and qualification of leadership) of it, but your main point is still utterly retarded.

You said, once before this, that in extreme cases it was okay to disobey leadership. But who decides morality or what cases are extreme enough? You only get to see the local picture, not the big picture. Is protecting freedom of speech grounds for disobeying? What if the speaker in question is a Neo-Nazi?

My main point, regarding current organizational structures, is that leadership is insufficiently accountable to the rank-and-file.

[Simon_Jester]

Going to court is all well and good so long as the institution of the court is respected by all involved. But as the contrasting examples of the Cherokee and the Seminoles show, sometimes violence is the only recourse to defend yourselves. Not to say that violence shouldn't be the last resort, it's so expensive in every sense that it should be, but if that last resort is infeasible then it isn't resortable at all.

So? As a practical matter, making every person the supreme arbiter of when they get to use violence as a "last resort" simply does not work. Human beings get stupid and crazy about violence. They interpret a threat to their perceived territory, or obnoxious behavior by others, as just grounds to launch an attack. They do NOT see the big picture.

It is far from unheard of for two men to get into a fight and both claim self defense. Obviously they can't both be right in any objective sense; there can be no defender without an attacker. But in their own heads they are both fully in the right: probably, because one acted to counter some perceived stressful problem or poorly defined "threat" that alarmed them.

This kind of thinking leads us to jump the gun in situations where the long-term consequences of doing so are disastrous- such as attacking police officers making a traffic stop. No one's interests are served by such use of violence. But the only way to prevent it is to, somehow, deter it: add an extra term in the equation, impose penalties for using violence as a "last resort" simply because you personally can't understand that you still have other, better options.

For that reason, if no other, you need a government, not just a swarm of loners running around making displays of shaved-monkey touchiness whenever their perceived interests are threatened.

Also, anarchy does not mean chaos. It means "without rulers", which is different from "social disintegration".

I understand that you're busy pretending my arguments don't exist, but I think they're relevant again: you have not proven this. You have not proven that there is any reliable way to have "without leaders" and not get "social disintegration."

You, personally, may not see the connection. That may just mean you're too tone-deaf to recognize what competent leaders actually do, though; it doesn't mean other people are wrong about it.

Anarchists are not against authority per se, but against unquestioned authority, and question things others say shouldn't be so.

And this is not a problem, so long as they are capable of telling when someone else has already answered their questions. That's the trouble with asking social questions: it's easy to pat yourself on the back for "asking questions" when you haven't made a good faith effort to comprehend the answer.

When you get right down to it, government taxes and mob protection money are very similar creatures.

Yep. A mob is a very primitive sort of government. One that lacks the accountability mechanisms built into more sophisticated governments. And, interestingly, one that appears naturally. No one had to intentionally say "I want organized crime in this area." Powerful, ruthless, and corrupt men naturally form organized crime rings on their own. Usually in areas where existing government control is weak and unable to stop them (like pre-modern Sicily or 1990s Russia).

To the prudent and objective observer, this suggests that removing the complicated governments like "the United States of America" from the picture will not yield a governmentless society. It will instead lead to a society governed by whatever self-organizing local governments (like the Mafia) happen to appear and establish their control.

As to how things like schools and fire departments would be funded without taxes? Volunteer contributions would likely be sufficient in the absence of taxes constantly draining everyone's funds, volunteer fire departments lasted quite a long time in England, and various postal services competed pretty effectively against the US postal service for a time even though the US put a tax on private mail carriers that exceeded their own cost for providing the service (three cent tax per letter on carrying mail IIRC, when it cost the US two cents per letter on average).

Can you demonstrate that this would work all the time? Things like roads and school systems can't just vary from one place to another. Everyone needs them, if they are to enjoy the fruits of civilized life. If I am willing to pay for schools and my neighbor in the next valley isn't, his children grow up ignorant... and I may wind up paying the costs, when his children are useless to the local economy and wind up going a-viking in my valley out of frustration.

It happens. That was the default condition of human civilization until quite recently: small communities governed by strongmen, communities often at war with their neighbors. I see no reason to assume that we can't go back to that state if we remove the organization that makes more complicated social frameworks possible.

I have been saying that most current organizational structures are designed to make it very, very difficult for the rank-and-file to call the leadership to account. I have been advocating organizational structures where the rank-and-file can call leadership to account at any time not because I think such an ability would be constantly used, I don't think people are generally that stupid...

Ask any police officer what fraction of the people they wind up arresting for committing a crime would attack them if there weren't serious legal penalties for attacking an officer of the law, if "I thought I was defending myself from wrongful arrest!" was considered a sufficient excuse. Then get back to me.

[Aranfan]

Jester, since I agree with most of what you're saying, I'll focus on what I see as miscommunications.

Also, anarchy does not mean chaos. It means "without rulers", which is different from "social disintegration".

I understand that you're busy pretending my arguments don't exist, but I think they're relevant again: you have not proven this. You have not proven that there is any reliable way to have "without leaders" and not get "social disintegration."

You, personally, may not see the connection. That may just mean you're too tone-deaf to recognize what competent leaders actually do, though; it doesn't mean other people are wrong about it.

I did not say without leaders, I said without rulers. There is a difference. A leader leads, while a ruler rules. This seems like a pointless distinction, so lets go to examples. In a military situation, the army is lead through territory by it's scouts and reconnaissance personnel, but these are not the same people who make the rules. In the Einstein/Lysenko example, Einstein was a leader while Lysenko was a ruler.

Social disintegration does follow from "without leaders", but I haven't seen convincing evidence that things fall apart without something receiving unquestioned deference.

When you get right down to it, government taxes and mob protection money are very similar creatures.

Yep. A mob is a very primitive sort of government. One that lacks the accountability mechanisms built into more sophisticated governments. And, interestingly, one that appears naturally. No one had to intentionally say "I want organized crime in this area." Powerful, ruthless, and corrupt men naturally form organized crime rings on their own. Usually in areas where existing government control is weak and unable to stop them (like pre-modern Sicily or 1990s Russia).

To the prudent and objective observer, this suggests that removing the complicated governments like "the United States of America" from the picture will not yield a governmentless society. It will instead lead to a society governed by whatever self-organizing local governments (like the Mafia) happen to appear and establish their control.

I am subjective, and can't get out of that subjectivity, but you are right. The USA is certainly a better State than most others, but this a difference in degree, not kind. Anarchist Spain, for example, shows that other ways are possible and feasible. I am not advocating warlordism, which is multi-statism, but grassroots organization where the organizers are fully accountable to the base.

The social fabric is too valuable to tear up and throw away, I'm not a "rugged individualist" who thinks society has done nothing for me and wants to get rid of it, but neither am I a communitarian who thinks the social fabric is too valuable to chance accidental tears and would stop those who want to add their own thread lest they damage it.

[PeZook]

I was asking if "the boss must be obeyed because they are the boss" should be taken to it's logical conclusion.

Obeying authority because it's authority and putting a limit on what you do and do not do is not logically exclusive.

If you see a cop standing on the street and he tells you to leave the area, your probably should leave the area without demanding written justification ; If a cop tells you to hand over your wallet and cell phone, you can refuse and if he forces you to, go to court.

See? There's no logical contradition here at all ; Hell, modern society even gives you nice guides and rules about what authority figures can and cannot demand of you!

In other situations the line is changed: in the military, not following orders gets people killed. So yes, if a major tells you to do X, you do X because he's a major. Even then, though, soldiers get to disobey illegal orders. Again, this is guaranteed by the very structure you criticize: in the absence of a proper modern state with codified rules, you get to excercise your individual judgement with a rifle barrel stuck in your face, which kinda limits your options.

Going to court is all well and good so long as the institution of the court is respected by all involved. But as the contrasting examples of the Cherokee and the Seminoles show, sometimes violence is the only recourse to defend yourselves. Not to say that violence shouldn't be the last resort, it's so expensive in every sense that it should be, but if that last resort is infeasible then it isn't resortable at all.

Yes, yes. If the people are opressed, they are within their rights to overthrow the government. How does it mean a situation with no government at all is preferrable? It avoids one specific problem while creating other massive ones.

Also, anarchy does not mean chaos. It means "without rulers", which is different from "social disintegration". Anarchists are not against authority per se, but against unquestioned authority, and question things others say shouldn't be so.

A state of anarchy inevitably leads to social collapse or destruction by more organized entities, so it might just as well be synonymous with "chaos". Or "warlordism", really.

If the people of Freetown Christiana don't want to pay taxes because they neither want nor assent to Denmark's "protection" then on what grounds would the government of Denmark be justified in sending in tanks to force them to pay taxes (which happened)? If an ancient stone age tribe in the Amazon has recently been discovered in the territory Brazil claims, then should they be jailed for failing to pay taxes?

The people of Freetown Christiana benefitted immensely from protection of the Danish state throughout their lives, lived on the state's infrastructure, got educated in state-run schools. Then they proceeded to squat on government property, violate the government's laws and declare they didn't need to contribute any more despite still using the security and order provided by the government.

Besides, your example doesn't work, because they eventually negotiated a compromise with the government who now pretty much leaves them alone. If they were facing a strongman warlord excercising his individual judgement (judgement that he's entitles to everyone's stuff), they'd be dead.

When you get right down to it, government taxes and mob protection money are very similar creatures. As to how things like schools and fire departments would be funded without taxes? Volunteer contributions would likely be sufficient in the absence of taxes constantly draining everyone's funds, volunteer fire departments lasted quite a long time in England, and various postal services competed pretty effectively against the US postal service for a time even though the US put a tax on private mail carriers that exceeded their own cost for providing the service (three cent tax per letter on carrying mail IIRC, when it cost the US two cents per letter on average).

Yeah, yeah. Charity will take care of all the problems, because all the government does is put out fires and train soldiers. It's not like you benefit every day from the work of various agencies, the court system, massive infrastucture, industrial safety standards, health and building codes...

You say charitable contributions would be sufficient ; Prove it. How much do Americans usually give to charity?

Oh hey I will even give you the necessary data

I have been saying that most current organizational structures are designed to make it very, very difficult for the rank-and-file to call the leadership to account.

They aren't deliberately designed to limit recourse ; It's a function of their scale. If we dispense with all layers of management but one, the high-level decision makers will be swamped with minutae and become unable to actually make informed decisions. Even if only 0.01% of americans called the President yearly with their issues, he'd have to answer 360 calls per day, or 15 per hour assuming he wouldn't need sleep, days off, wouldn't get sick, etc.

I have been advocating organizational structures where the rank-and-file can call leadership to account at any time not because I think such an ability would be constantly used, I don't think people are generally that stupid, but because the possibility of getting called to account has to be a credible threat to the leadership in order to keep them in line.

You don't need the ability to be "constantly" used to swamp the decision makers with minutae. After a certain scale, a small percent of troublemakers is enough to clog the system.

My main point, regarding current organizational structures, is that leadership is insufficiently accountable to the rank-and-file.

Yet I only see vague mumbo-jumbo, rather than proposals for working large-scale systems.

Don't think you're that clever ; People have been trying to crack that problem for as long as civilization existed, since they noticed unaccountable leaders led to problems.

[Aranfan]

Why are large scale organizations with these problems preferable to many small scale organizations without them?

In your example you aren't obeying the major because he's a major, your obeying the major because otherwise people die.

[PeZook]

Why are large scale organizations with these problems preferable to many small scale organizations without them?

Because we can't maintain seven billion people with tribal levels of organization, since they require large-scale agriculture, power, transportation networks and industry, all of which are things tiny tribal groups simply can't pull off (since large industrial projects can involve more people than the populations of many ancient city-states...)

Then of course you need to protect all of that stuff with things like continent-spanning air defence networks.

In your example you aren't obeying the major because he's a major, your obeying the major because otherwise people die.

If you are a private in the military and you see a major and he tells you to go dig a hole, you go dig a hole. Why? Because he's a major, you're a soldier, and soldiers follow orders - not just in combat, but it's important they do it anyway. Otherwise, the military won't function and everyone will die when they go to fight.

Same relationship as in civilian life with all sorts of other authorities, it's merely a difference of degree.

[Aranfan]

Why are large scale organizations with these problems preferable to many small scale organizations without them?

Because we can't maintain seven billion people with tribal levels of organization, since they require large-scale agriculture, power, transportation networks and industry, all of which are things tiny tribal groups simply can't pull off (since large industrial projects can involve more people than the populations of many ancient city-states...)

Then of course you need to protect all of that stuff with things like continent-spanning air defence networks.

I didn't say we should go back to tribalism, and you misinterpreted me if that's what you thought I said. I'm asking: why the people of Nowhere, Kansas should be forced to shell out their money to fund sending their boys off to die in Southeast Asia, if they don't want to? Why can't the people of Nowhere, Kansas trade with who they like as they like without people thousands of miles away demanding a portion of their money simply for existing?

In your example you aren't obeying the major because he's a major, your obeying the major because otherwise people die.

If you are a private in the military and you see a major and he tells you to go dig a hole, you go dig a hole. Why? Because he's a major, you're a soldier, and soldiers follow orders - not just in combat, but it's important they do it anyway. Otherwise, the military won't function and everyone will die when they go to fight.

Same relationship as in civilian life with all sorts of other authorities, it's merely a difference of degree.

And if the major tells you to gas the civvies, then you gas the civves because he's a major and your a soldier and soldiers follow orders.

[PeZook]

I didn't say we should go back to tribalism, and you misinterpreted me if that's what you thought I said.

You said a coalition of small systems "without these problems" is preferable to the current situation. Since "these problems" (corruption, separation of leadership from the people, bureaucracy) appear inevitably once you try to manage more than about a hundred people, I took it that you'd like to split society into communities with numbers low enough to run them with one, maybe two layers of management.

Hence, tribalism.

I'm asking: why the people of Nowhere, Kansas should be forced to shell out their money to fund sending their boys off to die in Southeast Asia, if they don't want to? Why can't the people of Nowhere, Kansas trade with who they like as they like without people thousands of miles away demanding a portion of their money simply for existing?

I explained this already. Unless the people of Nowhere, Kansas, live like neolithic peasants, they will have to use the products of civilization that the federal government organizes and maintains. It will also keep the people from Angrytown, Kansas, from rolling in and killing everyone in Nowhere the moment they feel like it (say, because Nowhere doesn't execute gay people).

Incidentally, the eeeeebil feds also have the resources to efficiently pursue and punish murderers who kill people in Nowhere and flee, and to bring in aid from elsewhere if a hurricane strikes the town, and drive in hundreds of firefighters with airplanes and helicopters to fight wildfires that threaten to burn down the town.

And if the major tells you to gas the civvies, then you gas the civves because he's a major and your a soldier and soldiers follow orders.

The evil institution called the Uniform Code Of Military Justice gives clear instructions when you can tell your officer to go fuck himself and relieve him of command, because people smarter than you recognized that you shouldn't have to adhere to simplistic rules in every conceivable situation.

You know, I may be wrong, but I believe I explained all that before.

[Simon_Jester]

I did not say without leaders, I said without rulers. There is a difference. A leader leads, while a ruler rules. This seems like a pointless distinction, so lets go to examples. In a military situation, the army is lead through territory by it's scouts and reconnaissance personnel, but these are not the same people who make the rules. In the Einstein/Lysenko example, Einstein was a leader while Lysenko was a ruler.

Social disintegration does follow from "without leaders", but I haven't seen convincing evidence that things fall apart without something receiving unquestioned deference.

What, exactly, do you think "unquestioned deference" means? Every time you attack the position of your opponents you refer to totalitarian dictatorship. What about other governments, where rulers do get questioned and called to account for their actions?

Also, you're still missing a critical point. Scouts lack the ability to compel an army to follow them, and often lack the perspective to decide whether an army should follow them. An army without officers will not function; at best it will wind up charging all over the landscape and hopefully colliding with the enemy in time to cause some damage before dying. This is because no one person can, on their own initiative and on their own time, gather enough information to make the relevant decisions.

They must have designated information-gatherers to funnel the information to them, people who can be in several places at once observing several things at once, because they personally cannot do that. That's the scouts' proper job; they do not "lead" any more than your eyeballs "lead" you through a building.

They must also have the training to interpret information. This is critical. A scout who sees something may be mistaken, or overly enthusiastic, or overly pessimistic. His picture of the situation may contradict that of another scout's: who's right? Someone has to make that decision before any move can be made.

Expecting each individual soldier to do an officer's job does not lead to the desired result (the army going where it should, engaging the enemy and avoiding traps). Some will make the right call, others the wrong call, and the result (a divided army spreading out across the landscape as a sort of statistical average of what each individual thinks the right thing to do is) is liable to be worse than the consequences of a wrong decision. If the commander makes the wrong decision and marches his army into a trap, at least they are entrapped as a single body and stand a chance of fighting their way back out. An army that spreads across the landscape like an amoeba cannot do this, and is easily gobbled up piecemeal by a concentrated force.

Yep. A mob is a very primitive sort of government. One that lacks the accountability mechanisms built into more sophisticated governments. And, interestingly, one that appears naturally. No one had to intentionally say "I want organized crime in this area." Powerful, ruthless, and corrupt men naturally form organized crime rings on their own. Usually in areas where existing government control is weak and unable to stop them (like pre-modern Sicily or 1990s Russia).

To the prudent and objective observer, this suggests that removing the complicated governments like "the United States of America" from the picture will not yield a governmentless society. It will instead lead to a society governed by whatever self-organizing local governments (like the Mafia) happen to appear and establish their control.

I am subjective, and can't get out of that subjectivity, but you are right. The USA is certainly a better State than most others, but this a difference in degree, not kind. Anarchist Spain, for example, shows that other ways are possible and feasible.

Anarchist Spain lasted for a matter of months before the Communists took over de facto control of the Republican movement as a whole, and a matter of years at best before being crushed alive by the dictatorship of Franco. That's not an encouraging analogy. I'd like my civilization to last more than three years, thank you very much.

I am not advocating warlordism, which is multi-statism, but grassroots organization where the organizers are fully accountable to the base.

You are advocating a social condition without a coherent idea of how to get there. You are envisioning something as elegant and unstable as a pencil balanced on its point, and ignoring the things that can, that all experience shows will go wrong.

Pretending that pencils balanced on their points are a good idea shows ignorance of physics and common sense. Pretending that anarchist communes are a viable way to run a civilization shows ignorance of sociology and common sense.

Why are large scale organizations with these problems preferable to many small scale organizations without them?

Who cares? Small organizations without such problems are a chimera. In the real world where actual human beings are forced to live, as distinct from the anarchist dream, small organizations have exactly these problems. In fact the problems are often worse because of small-group social dynamics: leaders being selected for their ability to make five loyal friends to control twenty followers, instead of for knowing what to do. Things like that.

In your example you aren't obeying the major because he's a major, your obeying the major because otherwise people die.

That's the thing, though. You don't get a choice. If you, personally do not care about the consequences of orders-in-the-abstract being ignored in the army as a whole, the army will jump up and down on you until you learn to act as if you care, or until you leave the army (alive or dead).

The reason you don't get a choice is because a distinct minority of people will, for reasons they believe sufficient at the time, choose to do the wrong thing. Or choose to do something with immediate benefits to them (avoiding hard work) and subtle, intangible long term costs (the army suffering a dysentery epidemic because no one dug the latrines). There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent this from happening, and so far the most satisfactory solutions all involve some kind of collective decision, or decision by an agent empowered to command the collective whole, to punish individuals who decide to do things harmful to the collective.

Which may well involve the major ordering you shot for abandoning a post you didn't think needed holding.

I didn't say we should go back to tribalism, and you misinterpreted me if that's what you thought I said. I'm asking: why the people of Nowhere, Kansas should be forced to shell out their money to fund sending their boys off to die in Southeast Asia, if they don't want to? Why can't the people of Nowhere, Kansas trade with who they like as they like without people thousands of miles away demanding a portion of their money simply for existing?

...Because they will cease to exist anyway when the next equivalent of the James Gang comes through? Because they're dependent on irrigation water from a river that is managed by public agencies and will die of thirst otherwise?

Seriously, what you're proposing is tribalism and you ought to be able to realize it. When each group is free to refuse resources for anything without immediately obvious benefit, you get tribalism. You can still convince tribes to cooperate... but it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, because their local issues (like rivalries with the next town over) will sabotage the alliance of small groups over large areas.

That's another reason why compulsion becomes necessary. To you getting rid of your hated rival by betraying him may seem like a brilliant move, but it's a shortsighted and asinine move when viewed as part of the big picture. And yet someone will have to stop you from doing that, because left to themselves people DO do that.

[Aranfan]

Paris managed for months while under siege with the kind of organization you're describing as tribal. And yes, the Paris Commune's constitution was written by an anarchist.

Also, Anarchist Aragon didn't collapse into chaos even after law was removed.


Regarding the military example, I used the same damn argument you did. If doing what the major says because he's a major is a valid justification for digging holes, it's valid for gassing civvies. As well, Makhno and Durruiti (probably spelled those names wrong) show that militaries can be quite effective even without unquestioning obedience towards officers.