Stateless Society

[heisenburrr]

Well, I'm asking you to walk us through how anarcho-capitalism (however you envision it) would deal with the issues I raised previously, since there is no state to regulate the market, enforce contracts, protect business interests, etc. You can choose to address whatever elements you'd like, with whatever type of capitalism you'd like, as long as your assumptions are being made clear.



How does capitalism benefit workers? The system moves from crisis to crisis and puts workers under constant stress and insecurity, with artificial scarcity and exploitation. Workers are perfectly capable of electing management - that does not need to be dictated by private power. If people are freed from the rule of capital, it would take force to reimpose the rule of capital. For example, today, Europeans don't live under feudalism. Although feudal relations still exist in some parts of the world, it is a mostly outdated mode of production. Someone who fancies himself a modern-day feudal lord can't just go and line up serfs, even if they'd like to be serfs. A person can't legally enslave another person today, even if people would like to be enslaved. There are norms and rules meant to stop those types of things. If there are mechanisms in place to stop an individual or a small group of people from re-establishing private control -- forcefully enclosing the means of production from the community -- that would require force. If anything, that would be tyranny - not the community's efforts to stop that from happening.

Totalitarian regime are not born from the desire of somehow who "fancies himself a modern-day feudal lord". They are often the result of the failure of socialist states.

From Hayek :

Although the "socialist" parties had the strength to get anything if they had cared to use force, they were reluctant to do so. They had, without knowing it, set themselves a task which only the ruthless ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals can execute.

That socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their ideals; they did not possess the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task.

It is characteristic that both in Germany and in Italy the success of fascism was preceded by a refusal of the socialist parties to take over the responsibility of government. They were unwilling to employ the methods to which they had pointed the way.

 

[DEAD7]

Was slavery okay too?

Okay? no.
Democratic? Yes.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Can anyone point me in the direction of literature on how a society without "the state" would function WELL that takes into account:

-the 7 billion + people on Earth
-sociology and psychology and what mechanisms would keep certain human propensities in check (violence, greed, etc)

From studying the science of biology for the past 14 years, I will bet my life that society CANNOT exist without Government...

(1) Chaos is the most natural thing...Because it requires less energy to be in chaos than to be organized...When you don't have enough energy to put things together, they will fall part...

(2) Anti-government people would like to believe that people can just come together and work together for a common goal without establishing any rules and regulations...

This has NEVER happened in the history of any thing...Even if you go to your college and select 4 students to work on project together, without leadership, structure and direction, that group is MORE likely to be dysfunctional...

(3) Humans beings have NOT evolved to the point were everyone of us knows his role in society and knows how to perform it without any supervision...For example, why are public washrooms/restrooms ALWAYS messy...Most us know we wouldn't want to toilet in messy washroom, and yet when you go a public washroom 9/10 times their in a despicable state...

Why? because the average human being will not do the 'right thing' if he or she was not being govern...

(4) It is almost intuitive...We need sets of rules and regulations to give us a framework to function with...

(5) Communism is the IDEAL form of Government...A healthy human body is in a state of Communism/Homeostasis...Resources get distributed on as needed basis...The heart gets just enough to keep beating, the brain just gets enough to do what it does and etc...

The fact that humans are INCAPABLE of practising communism, is evidence enough that we NEED governments...

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Okay? no.
Democratic? Yes.

Explain...?

I would say Slavery was Ok and Democratic...Why should white people give a fcuk about blacks...?

 

[DEAD7]

Okay, so you're backing away from anarcho-capitalism and anti-state rhetoric right now. .

I'd prefer a comparative examination of capitalism.
Looking at it independent of available alternatives seems like a waste of time.


That said, the anarcho version is untenable

 

[DEAD7]

Explain...?

I would say Slavery was Ok and Democratic...Why should white people give a fcuk about blacks...?

You would have to accept the lie that black men are not men at all, but animals... for it to be "ok".

 

[nineteeneightysix]

You would have to accept the lie that black men are not men at all, but animals... for it to be "ok".

If you are black, of course, you shouldn't accept that...But if you are not black, it is whole different argument...

If you state slavery was democratic, then there is VERY thin line between it being "okay" or "not okay"....

If black men are men, then how is slavery democratic...?

 

[heisenburrr]

If you are black, of course, you shouldn't accept that...But if you are not black, it is whole different argument...

If you state slavery was democratic, then there is VERY thin line between it being "okay" or "not okay"....

If black men are men, then how is slavery democratic...?

How is it not? Was it not the view and choice held by the majority of individuals in a given group?

 

[nineteeneightysix]

How is it not? Was it not the view and choice held by the majority of individuals in a given group?

The majority also believed (and many of them probably still believe) that black people are only 3/5ths of a human being...

Therefore, slavery was ok and democratic...Based on majority opinion...At that time...

If, today, you believe that slavery was not ok then how can you in the next sentence say it was democratic...? Only white people were allowed to participate in the system...

What argument can you use against slavery in America, if the majority of Americans in that time were ok with it...

We ca state that slavery is wrong today, but how can we state that it was wrong yesterday...

 

[DEAD7]

Democracy is a polite way of saying majority tyranny.

That's all there really is to it.

 

[heisenburrr]

(3) Humans beings have NOT evolved to the point were everyone of us knows his role in society and knows how to perform it without any supervision...For example, why are public washrooms/restrooms ALWAYS messy...Most us know we wouldn't want to toilet in messy washroom, and yet when you go a public washroom 9/10 times their in a despicable state...

Typical communist rhetoric.

How would you like to have someone supervise your actions in the restrooms because of some uncivilized messy bunch?

 

[heisenburrr]

The majority also believed (and many of them probably still believe) that black people are only 3/5ths of a human being...

Therefore, slavery was ok and democratic...Based on majority opinion...At that time...

If, today, you believe that slavery was not ok then how can you in the next sentence say it was democratic...? Only white people were allowed to participate in the system...

What argument can you use against slavery in America, if the majority of Americans in that time were ok with it...

We ca state that slavery is wrong today, but how can we state that it was wrong yesterday...

You are mixing up two totality different things. You are in fact pointing out the failure of democracy. Democracy does not define moral standards. The fact that a group majority accepted slavery does not make it OK.

It only supports @DEAD7 statement above that democracy is indeed the tyranny of the majority, no matter the morality of their decisions.

 

[Box Cutta]

Can anyone point me in the direction of literature on how a society without "the state" would function WELL that takes into account:

-the 7 billion + people on Earth
-sociology and psychology and what mechanisms would keep certain human propensities in check (violence, greed, etc)

One idea that I used to see kicked around a lot was the concept of "Communes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(socialism)

That wiki-article is pretty bare, but the essential idea would be that people simply form their own communities, pool and share their resources and items, pick their leaders based on...whatever they want (Random assignment? Level of education? Voting like we have now? Each commune would decide on its own). You're asking for how this would work with 7 billion people...hell if I know. I'm not sure whether society is even heading anywhere near this. Marx of course thought that this hypothetical stateless, communist society was the next "stage" after capitalism, hell, he thought it was the final stage. But it would appear to me that if we ever reach some sort of post-capitalist state of being, it's not coming through class-struggle, or heightened awareness, but through technology and science (More on this in a moment).

As of now, we've evolved into Supercapitalism if anything. As of right now, I don't see a peak, I see no summit. Maybe elsewhere there is light of day, but in the US it feels as though the elite class has as tight of a grip on our society as they have ever had.

Back to the idea of "communes". The most important aspect here is that almost everyone would have to either agree on this style of living, or at the very least, would have to evolve to it naturally. Case in point : A big "moment" for certain radical leftist was the Paris Commune : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune Obviously it failed.....how long could people really occupy Paris, France? Even in 1871?

Walden Two, a fictional novel written by behaviorist B.F. Skinner, is something that you might be interested in. Although, the novel is of course more about his (completely?) debunked theories on reinforcement than the mechanisms of a stateless society, there are many themes about what a "utopian" society might look like, particularly leadership.

I put utopia in parentheses for a reason. Something that needs to be emphasized here is that, there is no utopia. Unless of course..onto my next point (And following what I said about science and tech)...

Another idea....futurology and transhumanism. Not really "ideas" so much as a loosely banded schools of different scientific disciplines. Who knows what advances in solar energy, robotics, nanotechnology, artificial photosynthesis, gene therapy, nuclear fusion, etc etc etc might bring in the future?

Some of these things are considerably more likely than others, nevertheless, significant gains in any combination of any of these ideas might lead to considerable changes...maybe the state just fades away if everyone has their basic needs met and there is no competition for those basic needs.

Of course, we live on a planet where, in theory, everyones basic needs *could* already be met...and they aren't being. And once again, states don't seem to be going anywhere. That's an issue of access. And probably a whole 'nother discussion altogether.

A question I would ask you @Poitier , and anyone else that would like to chime in on this matter is....are you one of those "humans aren't long for this world" pessimist...or are you an optimist that believes we are gonna be around for awhile? I know a lot of the futurist stuff is either pie in the sky, or not something that is going to happen in any of our lifetimes (Kurzweil is just gonna have to accept that he's not going to live forever....), and shyt, I'm as pessimistic in the current state of the world as anyone....but I'm still not willing to put all my eggs into the "things will always be bad" basket.

In regards to violence, greed, and the other negatives of the human psych...I think that's always going to be there (Barring some of the more hypothetical futurist ideas like gene therapy or implanted chips or whatever).That goes for racism/sexism/ageism/ableism/etc etc etc. Violence in particular. We might get rid of murder 1, but we aren't getting rid of murder 2. Some men are always going to beat their wives. Some people are never going to accept homosexuality. Ancestry will always matter. Etc. Like I said, no utopia. Maybe just an easier form of living for most people on the planet. We can dampen many aspects of the human psyche through education, a feeling of community, fairness, etc. I think that many people already accept that poverty has an influence on crime for instance.

Last thing.....I guess another way this could "work" would be....if it fukking has to. Apocalyptic scenario. The Walking Dead. Asteroids. Etc. That's of course getting more anticipatory/science-fictioney than even the futurist stuff. But it's possible. Even then, we are talking about some truly global catastrophe type of shyt if we are talking about getting rid of "the state". Obviously, if some terrible shyt really went down, greed and violence aren't being kept "in check"...they might be the most important of tools to survive....or, maybe they would be the greatest downfall...depending on what your opinion on how truly beneficial altruism truly is.

 

[heisenburrr]

One idea that I used to see kicked around a lot was the concept of "Communes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(socialism)

That wiki-article is pretty bare, but the essential idea would be that people simply form their own communities, pool and share their resources and items, pick their leaders based on...whatever they want (Random assignment? Level of education? Voting like we have now? Each commune would decide on its own). You're asking for how this would work with 7 billion people...hell if I know. I'm not sure whether society is even heading anywhere near this. Marx of course thought that this hypothetical stateless, communist society was the next "stage" after capitalism, hell, he thought it was the final stage. But it would appear to me that if we ever reach some sort of post-capitalist state of being, it's not coming through class-struggle, or heightened awareness, but through technology and science (More on this in a moment).

As of now, we've evolved into Supercapitalism if anything. As of right now, I don't see a peak, I see no summit. Maybe elsewhere there is light of day, but in the US it feels as though the elite class has as tight of a grip on our society as they have ever had.

Back to the idea of "communes". The most important aspect here is that almost everyone would have to either agree on this style of living, or at the very least, would have to evolve to it naturally. Case in point : A big "moment" for certain radical leftist was the Paris Commune : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune Obviously it failed.....how long could people really occupy Paris, France? Even in 1871?

Communes are a concept also supported by Joseph Stiglitz in his latest books.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Typical communist rhetoric.

How would you like to have someone supervise your actions in the restrooms because of some uncivilized messy bunch?

(1) Communism is impossible..Humans will never be enlightened enough in our life time, to exist in a communist society...

(2) You clearly missed the point...But let me try to break it down for you...If humans can't even keep a public washroom clean on their own accord, what makes you believe we will be able to manage the Earth without governance...

I am a supervisor in my profession, and I have learned that it is silly to believe people will do their jobs as they are suppose to...You NEED to have clear expectations and rules of engagement...And people like a strong leader with clear rules and regulations...

"let people do what they want" leadership is NOT effective...I don't have time to post all the studies that back this opinion...But you can do the knowledge for yourself...

(3) Communism is about equitable distribution of resources, not supervising people in the washroom ...Come on dude, are you trying to be simple on purpose...Why didn't you make sly remarks when I used the healthy human body as an analogy of communism...?

If your brain was hogging all the glucose, how will your heart function, how will all other organs function...?

This is the ideal of communism...If our bodies functioned under the ideals of a free market economy, I don't think we would be having this on line conversation...

(4) I am not a communist...I have been studying biology for the past 14 years...I use what we know about biological systems to develop my own opinion about things...

From what I learned in biology, I believe communism is the ideal system...If you are healthy, it is because all the cells in your body are getting enough resources to function effectively...

Your entire body works as a team to get you food...When you have acquired that food, the food is distributed equally across the body...Systems that expand a lot of energy get more food, those that expand less get less food...

But everybody gets enough to be happy, and to continue to contribute in a positive manner..

That is communism...If you think I am wrong tell me why, don't reply with cliches and lame jokes...

If your heart has to beat faster and harder just to get the bare minimum, you will DIE of a heart attack...That is essentially what a heart attack is...

Science is