Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6256
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Dangerman » 14 Sep 2018, 13:59

The Terra Ignota books feature a polycentric legal system that ignores geography. You pick a team, and you live by their laws and there are classes of people who deal with the conflict, including a sort of neutral central investigation slash arbitration group. There are also Blacklaws who claim no group and live outside the protection of a unified tribe, (for instance they could be murdered without cause by almost anyone all the time without penalty to the killer, and usually go about heavily armed.)

It's pretty well fleshed out if anyone wanted to look for specific examples.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17212
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 14 Sep 2018, 14:46

JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 22:06
Eric the .5b wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 19:00
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 18:34
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 16:40
Right. Bad actors don’t want to live under a set of different rules they want rules to apply to others but not them and seek exploits on an ad hoc basis.
Here in America we call that a "legal system".
You don’t escape the problem.
True, but in my defense "Failure to map out to the micron a system that is supposed to be determined by the needs and consent of people involved in it makes that system unworkable unlike the very workable extant system of feeding people who can't afford lawyers face first into the grinding gears of the legal-industrial complex" is a big problem to escape.
No, the problem is that you don't escape many of the reasons a judicial system exists just by saying "Whee, no government!"
Yes this. All the features are there or they aren’t and you have no coherent rules regimes.
Path-dependency and the actual consent of actual people is an essential feature of anarchist justice and therefore it will never meet your standards for a fully consistent top-down fanverse. Hell, except for the consent part and the justice part, it's an essential feature of maxarchist legal systems too. So you can spend all the time you like picking apart thought experiments and saying 'that would never work IRL because Greedo shoots first', but that doesn't alter the essential nature of anarchy nor the glaring reality that the system we live under now doesn't work IRL.

If I wasn't so sure you were applying the same standards of coherence to the way things are now, I would almost be tempted to accuse you of arguing in bad faith and ignoring/dismissing inconvenient arguments.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24610
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Warren » 14 Sep 2018, 14:54

Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 14:46
...the glaring reality that the system we live under now doesn't work IRL.
Er wha? What do you mean by "doesn't work"? That it doesn't deliver "justice"? Nothing does or ever will.
It works fine in the sense that it's stable and respected by the majority of the population, and allows for a thriving economy.

Indeed I would argue that some sort of judicial system is necessary for a thriving economy, and the IRL one we have clears the low bar hurdles.
Private security and arbitration require a supervising authority over that lest the system devolves into piracy and war lords.
The value of peer review lies substantially in the nature of one's peers. - that Ridgely guy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 14 Sep 2018, 15:54

Yeah I don't get what "doesn't work" means in practical terms. There is no 100% just outcomes perfectly voluntary everyone gets to do anything they want thing. The spheres of "gets to do what they want" create conflicts that must be adjudicated. The parties empowered to create rules, enforce them, and adjudicate disputes have more power than other parties in all systems everywhere forever. If you have those parties the system "doesn't work" in the same way the one we have right now doesn't work. If you don't have those parties you don't have enforceable rule sets.

"You shouldn't take that it isn't yours."
"Pound sand. Take it back I dare you."
"You through assent agreed to live by these rules ...'
"pound sand take it back I dare you."

If you think the affirmative assent to the rules is the only thing that matters in all of governance, then yes this system with no "or else" at the end of it technically "works". It's A Thing to assent to a set of rules but in the iterative process of people telling each other to pound sand and no enforcement, life isn't that we all live by these rules we each agreed to - practical life is these rules don't exist.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 14 Sep 2018, 18:26

Painboy wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 23:08
Eric the .5b wrote:
13 Sep 2018, 17:03
Wait, wait, wait. You have multiple totally-not-states, but any one or two is going to be able to dictate this exile to all the perpetrator's neighbors, even if they belong to many other totally-not-states. How?
It would be similar to when counties and states have policies in place to deal with jurisdiction issues. You could do it through individual action but I believe most people would join groups not just for protection but so they wouldn't have to deal with stuff like this directly. Also things like this aren't something you would start from scratch every time. There would be traditions and customs that would evolve over time that would help handle these situations.
How? Why?

This is complete hand-waving. People select among different not-a-states to protect them from bad actors, but the various not-a-states back up their "punishments" through everybody voluntarily complying with their demands for ostracization because...well, people just will. (People in the real world don't go all go along with restrictions on people imposed by coercion-backed agencies, but in this anarchotopia, they'll all totally go along with demands to trap and starve out some accused person.)

Why not just cut to the chase and say people will never be bad actors because of "traditions and customs"? It's about as plausible.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17212
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 14 Sep 2018, 19:05

JasonL wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 15:54
Yeah I don't get what "doesn't work" means in practical terms.
  • 90%+ of criminal cases never see trial, in violation of the sixth and seventh amendments
  • Governments at all levels routinely surveil and search people without a warrant, in violation of the fourth amendment (and that's without even getting into the rubber-stamp farce that obtaining a warrant entails).
  • Law enforcement at all levels commit literal highway robbery through civil asset forfeiture, in violation of the fifth amendment, which creates incentives to shake people down for cash under color of law.
  • Also creating perverse incentives are municipalities shaking people down for code violations as a primary revenue stream
  • Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence that send innocent people to prison for decades and face no legal or even professional consequences as for doing so.
  • People also go to prison for decades on the basis of garbage forensic science and expert testimony
  • Public defenders for indigent clients are routinely overworked, underfunded, and lack equal access to evidence and witnesses pretrial, denying people their sixth amendment rights. Some states don't fund their public defenders at all.
  • On the rare occasions that criminal defendants do get a court trial, juries are stacked to exclude anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and chosen specifically based on their willingness to swallow what the prosecutors feed them (unless the defendant can afford to hire pricey lawyers and jury consultants to tilt juries in their favor. So, justice!)
  • Even if capital punishment weren't a moral abomination, the way it is applied in the United States is indisputably racist.
  • Prison sentences are too long and prisons are designed to inflict God's righteous vengeance rather than reform offenders.
  • Prisons are snakepits of gangs and institutionalized racism where prisoners are assaulted, raped, and murdered because the people charged with their safety and rehabilitation dgaf.
  • Prisons use prisoners as slave labor, which isn't technically a violation of the 13th amendment, but it doesn't say great things about your system when you're debating under what legal circumstances slavery is permitted.
  • After people serve their prison sentences they begin serving their double-dip punishment on the outside, which limits where they can live, what kinds of work they are allowed to do, whether and where they are allowed to travel, and costs them time and money they don't have in order to meet the arbitrary standards of their parole officers.
  • Cops choke people out, shoot them down in the streets, plant evidence, take people for rough rides, rape and assault people, and blast away on any dog who crosses their paths, and are punished with a paid vacation and a reassuring phone call from their union rep.
  • Sheriff Joe inflicted cruel and unusual punishments on his prisoners in violation of the eighth amendment, he racially profiled people, suppressed and harassed the media, etc etc, and faced up to six months in prison for it. Fortunately he was pardoned.
  • Elected officials like Sheriff Joe, like Hillary Clinton, like Jeff Sessions spew bullshit about illegal immigrants, supercriminals, and gateway drugs and are rewarded with reelection for their draconian policies.
  • Oh and while we're on the topic of immigrants, the DHS, ICE, CPB and other agencies empowered to brutalize people for the grievous offense of crossing an imaginary line are feeling their oats to detain people indefinitely, imprison children, and deny passport applications because
  • Oh and while we're on the topic of indefinite detention, there's that handful of people in Cuba who will live out the rest of their lives in government custody without ever having been charged much less tried for a crime after they were captured on foreign soil in what is definitely not a war.
  • Ross Ulbricht is serving a double life sentence in a federal supermax for building a website
  • ETA: forgot about the "process is the punishment" stuff like Preet Bharara threatening people with financially ruinous litigation for actions clearly protected by the first amendment.
So whether your standard is "delivers justice", "enforces rules in a non-arbitrary way", "lives up to its own basic principles", or the very real standard that someone definitely argued for "100% just outcomes perfectly voluntary everyone gets to do anything they want", the system doesn't seem to be doing any of them.

But hey, the system is stable, the economy is roaring, and a majority of people "respect the system" whatever that means. So there's no reason to believe that any other system would be preferable.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24610
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Warren » 14 Sep 2018, 19:31

Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 19:05
So there's no reason to believe that any other system would be preferable.
Nobody said that.

All your bullet list shows, is that the system could be improved. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I'm not really sure, but I thought the question under debate amounted to "Should we try to fix the system, or burn it down?".
The value of peer review lies substantially in the nature of one's peers. - that Ridgely guy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 14 Sep 2018, 20:14

Does the something else have rules enforcement or not?

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17212
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 14 Sep 2018, 21:30

JasonL wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 20:14
Does the something else have rules enforcement or not?
I don't know. Nobody does. The speculative fiction and anarchotheory I've read have different answers. But the point I'm trying to make is that it is a fool's errand to try and construct and argue against something that is essentially, inescapably, an emergent order.

The core question, as Warren insightfully points out, is whether the system can be reformed or needs to be burned down. I am firmly in the latter camp. I don't know what an anarchist world would look like, but I know that the current system is an atrocity that cannot be meaningfully reformed because it benefits too many people with too much power. Same reason it won't be burned down.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 14 Sep 2018, 22:09

Does the current something have “rules enforcement”?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26398
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by thoreau » 14 Sep 2018, 22:13

I am far from convinced that we live in the best of all possible systems, but I am even less convinced that anarchy is the answer. Four problems:

1) I don't think you actually get away from a de facto monopoly on force. Every serious anarchist proposal that I've ever seen has security providers. In order to avoid burdensome transaction costs when security providers move around and pass through areas patrolled by other providers, they'll wind up with common protocols and agreements via industry organizations, contracts, and corporate mergers that look suspiciously like federations and treaties. At that point you're back to a monopoly on force.

You might argue that at least these conglomerates and industry organizations are just focused on security, not total management of all aspects of life. But that takes us to point 2:

2) Is there any evidence that mercantilist oligarchies are more liberal on matters of human rights and due process than modern liberal democracies? Maybe they aren't worse, maybe some are even a bit better (at least in certain circumstances and for certain segments of the population) but are they consistently better? Do people have a recourse when they get worse?

Ah, but people have exit rights! They can switch security providers!

Right, except....

3) Say that somebody decides to switch security providers. They are fed up with the illiberal behavior of the Common Protocol Providers. So they cancel their contract and switch to NuCorp. And then they have a break-in and they call NuCorp. And a NuCorp responder is heading to the client's home when they are pulled over by Common Protocol forces, who say the following:

"Excuse me, but under the Terms and Conditions agreed to by all the property owners in this neighborhood, armed teams cannot enter this area unless they agree to abide by Common Protocol. So I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

And the NuCorp agent says that his client no longer subscribes to Common Protocol and so the Terms and Conditions don't apply. To which the Common Protocol agents say "That's great for him, but he doesn't own this road. The Road Consortium has a contract with a Common Protocol Provider In Good Standing, so you cannot drive to your client's home on this road. Now, if you'd like to leave your weapons on private property before getting on this road, you are welcome to continue on your way to your client. We'll follow, to provide escort, and while you conduct your business we'll have our billing department process a contract cancellation penalty for your client."

Everything we know about human nature and the behavior of large organizations based on force strongly suggests that my scenario is likely.

4) But let's say we do manage to avoid full-on monopoly. How liberal will this system be? For me, a boring suburban guy with a comfortable income, it will probably be fine. What about low-income neighborhoods? They won't get great security providers, so crime will be a problem. Maybe Mafia-like organizations will bring crime under some sort of control while charging "protection" money. And if you want to argue that it would be no worse than what governments do in poor neighborhoods, well, let's say you're right. But how much better will it be? Do mafias really have track records that are consistently better than governments?

I think that improvement is possible, but saying we'll do it by getting rid of government is naive. You'll get security consortia and conglomerates that are relabeled governments, and the hard work of keeping them in check will still remain.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Eric the .5b » 14 Sep 2018, 22:39

Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 19:05
So whether your standard is "delivers justice", "enforces rules in a non-arbitrary way", "lives up to its own basic principles", or the very real standard that someone definitely argued for "100% just outcomes perfectly voluntary everyone gets to do anything they want", the system doesn't seem to be doing any of them.
No system can accomplish anything perfectly. However, as flawed as our system is and as much as everyone here wants to reform it, it accomplishes the basic function of keeping our civilization intact, even in its current form. It enforces rules consistently enough for that roaring economy. Etc.

You don't get to compare the status quo to perfection, then offer another dreamy alternative while blowing off any negative thoughts about it. Or you do, but nobody with a brain will take the argument seriously. To advocate an alternative, you have to explain how it will work better, not just jump up and down and rattle off the flaws of the status quo .

Which, yes, is an unavoidable problem with advocating anarcho-capitalism, because anybody advocating it can only wildly speculate about what methods of addressing problems it could use. But that's the burden you have when you decide to advocate rainbows and fairy farts as a solution.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 14 Sep 2018, 23:00

“H&R” wrote:Warty|9.25.15 @ 2:03PM|#

Are we all pretending that we don't live in anarchy now?

reply to this report spam
Just say Nikki|9.25.15 @ 2:04PM|#

Not all of us.

reply to this report spam
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17212
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 14 Sep 2018, 23:23

Just say Nikki|9.16.15 @ 2:37PM|# wrote:
The point isn't in getting rid of [coercive authority], but as recognizing it as illegitimate and responding on that basis.
Image
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 14 Sep 2018, 23:46

I don’t know what that means. Does everyone act as though rules are illegitimate and do whatever the fuck they want?

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 14 Sep 2018, 23:49

JasonL wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 23:46
I don’t know what that means. Does everyone act as though rules are illegitimate and do whatever the fuck they want?
Uhhhhh

Yes?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 14 Sep 2018, 23:57

Who starts shooting first when they want your shit?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 14 Sep 2018, 23:58

Iow - this idea is hilariously eliding of the effect of real talk bad actors.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 15 Sep 2018, 00:01

JasonL wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 23:57
Who starts shooting first when they want your shit?
There are people who do do that, who prefer to take the risks associated with lawbreaking. Only some of them are cops.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 15 Sep 2018, 00:03

I mean...you guys are all talking about how if whatever nonstate mafia gains enough power it becomes a state. So, you recognize that the state is just the biggest mafia. There’s no question of “legitimacy” in terms of its monopoly on violence. So...how is this not exactly what you say anarchy would be?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17212
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Hugh Akston » 15 Sep 2018, 00:07

JasonL wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 23:58
Iow - this idea is hilariously eliding of the effect of real talk bad actors.
Or it rejects the arbitrarily narrow conception of who counts as bad actors.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26398
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by thoreau » 15 Sep 2018, 00:10

nicole wrote:
15 Sep 2018, 00:03
I mean...you guys are all talking about how if whatever nonstate mafia gains enough power it becomes a state. So, you recognize that the state is just the biggest mafia. There’s no question of “legitimacy” in terms of its monopoly on violence. So...how is this not exactly what you say anarchy would be?
Fine, then by my analysis we're already in anarchy. Yay.

Now what?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22637
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by JasonL » 15 Sep 2018, 00:15

I think you lack imagination of the effect of bad actors really running the show. This is a bit like that thing where there’s not real difference between US and DPRK because all government illegitimate. Yeah but ... take a look that’s not real. The thing where biggest bully warlords extort and rape and pillage all day - that’s actually a thing.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by nicole » 15 Sep 2018, 00:19

So...DPRK is a state. It runs its own show. That’s a thing.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7184
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Debate: Be an Anarchist, Not a Minarchist

Post by Shem » 15 Sep 2018, 00:21

Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Sep 2018, 21:30
But the point I'm trying to make is that it is a fool's errand to try and construct and argue against something that is essentially, inescapably, an emergent order.
You sound like a communist.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests