People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[Angrboda]

If people form social circles so well without rules, then why do I and the other mods have to be constantly weeding out bad members?

I find this study deficient in that it doesn't study a real world group of greater numbers than a small tribe.

Games are easy to derive bullshit from. I know, I develop on them. And I can tell you that a LOT of it is contrived and mostly without innate value (as in, you don't have much to lose from it).

Yes. A friend in one of my philosophy groups was telling us about an online game where the evolved ethos is kill or be killed.

But this overlooks the underlying pattern, in which human groups gravitate toward stasis points, some violent, some peaceful. The human brain evolved over several million years in which the African continent was undergoing frequent and radical climate change and unrest. The human mind is an engine of change, adapting quickly to whatever the environment presents us with. In violent, changeful climate, behaviors adapted to flourishing under those conditions presents itself; if that environment changes, so does the behavior.

It might be more useful to look upon human behavior as a specific fitness landscape, with points of stability at various places on that landscape. Local minima and maxima. I doubt our species is in any sense fine tuned for a specific form of social organization or social fabric; I suspect there are multiple profitable points. (There's a beautiful section in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker in which he's discussing the mechanics of sexual selection in certain birds, and how male plumage in that species forms a whole family of individual tail lengths which the genetic machinery will gravitate toward, and that assuming that adaptation approaches a single, optimized point is to misunderstand the complex and nuanced behavior of genetic systems. The mathematics of evolution is far richer than the story book accounts of it that most people absorb from popular culture; there is enormous complexity just below the surface.)

[KichigaiNeko]

Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.

OK... if you like.

Quite frankly I felt that this "study" did NOT reflect 'Real Life' but more reflective of "Cyber-life" ..... too much reliance on computer modelling and no 'Real-Life' study

[reverendjeremiah]

Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.

You can crow about the nice stuff. What I really care about is the long term stability, social dynamics in a real world, with life, death, resources and theft.

Mind you, Somalia could be considered in anarchy for the above definition 1a (Absence of government) -- I'll ignore the rest of the definition as it incurs an emotional context that is not required in discussing an-archy (without government).

They're not forming spontaneous social circles that stabilize the region. I wonder why.

Perhaps the real world is much more difficult to model than some crap game?

Look, Im not putting much weight on a game, and yes people are much more difficult to figure out than code.

Please be aware that you are using the American demonized definition of Anarchy (which is really chaotic mob rule and ??dictatorship??)

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā), has more than one colloquial definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples[5], that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]

If you have a dictatorship, it is the exact OPPOSITE of anarchy.

If you have a "mob rule", it is not anarchy. Anarchy supports individual freedoms over the masses.

If you have "war lords" (as is the case for Somalia), then you do not have an anarchy.

If you have any kind of state or centralised authority, then you do not have an anarchy.

If your society is ruled by religion (which is also the case for Somalia), then you do NOT have an anarchy. - Example: some people blamed the authoritarian communists for the destruction of many churches in Sapin during the revolution. In reality the trade union anarchists tore down the churches. Why? Because they were in cohoots with Franco. Not all of the churches were destroyed by the anarchists. A handful of independent churches were left alone. Why? Because they didnt force themselves or authority onto the people through the government. (source= George Orwell "homage to Catalonia")

If your economy is state planned, then you do not have an anarchy.

-You have the left economy, which is state planned
-You have the right economy, which is "free market" with the govt only existing to enforce property legislation
-You have the "third way", which is fascism
- and then you have syndicalism, which is a free market with no government enforcement of property.

(there are more economic systems, Im just using these as popular examples)

Syndicalism is completely cooperative and decentrallised. With no govt all property is held in common. This doesnt mean your toothbrush or the sanctity of your home. This means LAND and resources are held in common by all people. The trades come together and perform their trade. By "direct action" of the trade workers the economy is controlled by the people without centralised planning through the labor exchange.

[The Magic Pudding]

I can't see how lawlessness is good.
It is the domain of the strong man.

[reverendjeremiah]

I can't see how lawlessness is good.
It is the domain of the strong man.

It doesnt mean that...and like i said, I put that definition up as an example of how it is being mis defined and demonized. Anarchy does have an order in it. The community comes together and decides what its rules are:

"No theft"
"No violence"

Its usually very simple rules. A thief who is caught will be quickly escorted out of the community. Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief will also be kicked out of the community. The community enforces the rules, not some jack booted thugs working for corrupt politicians.

We have laws right now against theivery. Has that stopped theivery? Nope. Greed and profit are glorified in our lawful community. Anarchism puts people before profits. Anarchism puts the individual before the masses.

I argue that if people are treated as individuals, instead of a means to make profit, then theivery and violence would be lessened considerably.

[Autumnlicious]

Its usually very simple rules. A thief who is caught will be quickly escorted out of the community. Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief will also be kicked out of the community.

Your system is flawed and stupid. It is flawed because it ignores "heat of the passion"-style crimes and context. It is stupid for ignoring other contexts as well in favor of simplistic protocols that would make a biblical literalist blush.

[reverendjeremiah]

Its usually very simple rules. A thief who is caught will be quickly escorted out of the community. Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief will also be kicked out of the community.

Your system is flawed and stupid. It is flawed because it ignores "heat of the passion"-style crimes and context. It is stupid for ignoring other contexts as well in favor of simplistic protocols that would make a biblical literalist blush.

You made your post, yet gave no examples. How can I answer your claims with no examples? What heat of passion crimes? What do other governments do to not ignore heat of passion crimes? Which other contexts does anarchism ignore?

Please keep in mind that in no way have I ever said it was a perfect system. Also keep in mind that I am not hard headed about this. I am willing to live in other types of communities, such as a social democracy or other left leaning systems. I personally like the northern European systems. I also like Anarcho-syndicalism (which I prefer).

No need to get mad or upset at me...and this isnt "my system". Many people have worked it out and tried it before I was even born.

[Autumnlicious]

You describe, in your hypothetical, a series of protocols summed up as:

Code:

$(unwanted action) -> kicked out

For example, let's look at the "Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief.."

Consider you catch the thief red handed in the act and move to apprehend him. Seeing this, he fights and struggles back in any way he can. Assuming you are successful but not some martial arts master (just a flailing human smacking at another flailing human), you'll probably, in some fashion, have beaten up the thief.

So much for the victim fighting back.

Let's look at another case -- what if the "thief" is starving (or has some other cause) for thievery? In this case, the "Its usually very simple rules" clause falls into play and off goes the thief, off "out of your community."

You're disregarding centuries of law, legal systems in favor of simplistic protocols.

As I said, it's stupid.

[reverendjeremiah]

I was merely pointing out ONE way that some anarchal systems would work. Some anarcho societies may not be so lenient. Some may have other methods of dealing with disruptive people. Its all about the majority consensus of the community.

For example, let's look at the "Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief.."

Consider you catch the thief red handed in the act and move to apprehend him. Seeing this, he fights and struggles back in any way he can. Assuming you are successful but not some martial arts master (just a flailing human smacking at another flailing human), you'll probably, in some fashion, have beaten up the thief.

Just beating the shit out of the theif is not going to make the community happy. If the theif steals from you, then starts violence to keep the object (which is what you are describing) then you are a victim of theivery and violence. Why would the community kick you out for defending your personal things or your own health? a community like that would not last long would it?

Anarchism isnt rocket science. Its very common sense and simple. Who wants to live in a violent community of theives willingly?

So much for the victim fighting back.

It depends on the situation. If the theif has a knife and the victim breaks the theifs arm getting the knife back, then WHY would the community kick him out? Now the theif gets kicked out of the community with a broke arm because it will be doubtful that anyone would help such an asshole. If the victim takes the knife from the thief and kills him with it, well, what do you think the community will react? They wont be none too happy that he killed someone would they? It really depends on what anarcho system is in effect at the time. In an anarcho capitalist system they would leave the killer alone as he was protecting his property and property is king in anarchocapitalist societies. If he was in a syndicate or social anarchy the reaction might be quite different. The community may come together and discuss the situation, come to the conclusion that the victim of theft went too far in taking a life and ask the man to leave.

Let's look at another case -- what if the "thief" is starving (or has some other cause) for thievery? In this case, the "Its usually very simple rules" clause falls into play and off goes the thief, off "out of your community."

The theif might definitely be starving in an anarcho-capitalist society. In a society like that the concepts of "rich" and "poor" are ingrained into the system. I dont like anarcho-capitalism because I consider it cruel. In an anarcho syndicalist system everyone has work. Even if there are too many people working on something, you are still expected to work (there is always something to do to build up the community). Everyone makes the same amount of money and everyone has a home. If the theif was starving in a syndicate, chances are the entire community AND the victim were also starving as well. If everyone is equal, why would theivery happen on a common basis? Why would someone steal food from his neighbor when he has the same? Also, in a syndicate, the community is encouraged to patrol itself. How long do you think a starving person would go unnoticed and unhelped in a community such as this? Give the man a sandwich and ask him to help you pick strawberries for the good of the community.

In spain the anarcho-syndicate known as FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) took over a ritzy rich hotel. Before the revolution the poor were barely fed. When the anarchists rose up they told the rich they are no longer rich. They are just the same as everyone else and if they dont like it then get the fuck out. Anyways, they took over the hotel and converted it into a peoples kitchen. Food was free for anyone who was hungry. Im not talking crap food either, or some kind of soup kitchen. People were encouraged to help the community, but not required. Pick up trash from the streets. If you are an electrician we have a short over here in the kitchen, etc, etc..

You're disregarding centuries of law, legal systems in favor of simplistic protocols.

Might as well accuse me of disregarding the Code of Hammurabi for all I care. anarchists are not traditionalists. What matters is the here and now. What matters is people today.

As I said, it's stupid.

You made that quite clear in your last post. I know... its stupid.

[Autumnlicious]

I was merely pointing out ONE way that some anarchal systems would work. Some anarcho societies may not be so lenient. Some may have other methods of dealing with disruptive people. Its all about the majority consensus of the community.

Ah, the much vaunted majority consensus. As I recall, prior to 1865, majorities in quite a few areas held that the color of your skin means you can be owned...

Just beating the shit out of the theif is not going to make the community happy. If the theif steals from you, then starts violence to keep the object (which is what you are describing) then you are a victim of theivery and violence. Why would the community kick you out for defending your personal things or your own health? a community like that would not last long would it?

Maybe, maybe not. Primitive societies can keep remarkably stable while practicing cultural practices and laws of dubious intent. It only follows that any society can maintain itself as long as the growth rate is greater than or equal to death rate.

And what if your group has many members of one family where they can use intimidation to prevent you from successfully protecting your property.

But hey, you're not going to leave, right? It's been your home since forever, you have friends, etc, etc,.

Jesus, the double think you've got here is astounding -- what makes you think you can solve problems that have plagued every societal implementation from day one? Anarchism, syndicalism, etc,. They're just as fanciful as Ron Paul's ideal world.

In the end run, as with any group of primates, you'll get clan/family-based loyalties, and thus a concentration of power. With the power and ability to form alliances comes ruling over others, in some sense. And then we're right back in a form of archy, a rule.

Doesn't matter if it's kings, the family matriarch or some mythical dude named Jesus, you're not going to find anarchy anywhere because inevitably, someone successfully reasserts control and begins to exercise their strength.

Anarchism isnt rocket science. Its very common sense and simple. Who wants to live in a violent community of theives willingly?

People who believe in violence and rule of the strong?

Please, tell me with a straight face those societies/groups never form...

It depends on the situation. If the theif has a knife and the victim breaks the theifs arm getting the knife back, then WHY would the community kick him out? Now the theif gets kicked out of the community with a broke arm because it will be doubtful that anyone would help such an asshole. If the victim takes the knife from the thief and kills him with it, well, what do you think the community will react? They wont be none too happy that he killed someone would they? It really depends on what anarcho system is in effect at the time. In an anarcho capitalist system they would leave the killer alone as he was protecting his property and property is king in anarchocapitalist societies. If he was in a syndicate or social anarchy the reaction might be quite different. The community may come together and discuss the situation, come to the conclusion that the victim of theft went too far in taking a life and ask the man to leave.

So in other words, there is no standard for justice but the fickle beliefs of your community-mates?

What if they community decides it's a good time to lynch some negros?

The theif might definitely be starving in an anarcho-capitalist society. In a society like that the concepts of "rich" and "poor" are ingrained into the system. I dont like anarcho-capitalism because I consider it cruel. In an anarcho syndicalist system everyone has work.

That makes no sense -- everyone has work? What if no further work can be done due to material limitations (until a totally unrelated discipline figures a way out)? Then no one, or much fewer, has work.

What if 'work' is defined by mining coal? What if all the coal is mined? What then? No more work.

Even if there are too many people working on something, you are still expected to work (there is always something to do to build up the community).

So instead you defer either to the masses to decide what is valuable (really? Really?) or a select group of individuals, of where tyranny can reign.

That's what capitalism got right -- it reduces down opinion to a common denominator -- demand/supply.

Show me something that sidesteps the "tyranny (or ignorance) of the masses" problem?

Everyone makes the same amount of money and everyone has a home.

So it is not equal work for equal pay?

If the theif was starving in a syndicate, chances are the entire community AND the victim were also starving as well. If everyone is equal, why would theivery happen on a common basis?

BECAUSE YOU ONLY LIVE IN YOUR HEAD AND WANT TO SURVIVE, you thick headed dunce!

Famines are the biggest time for robbery, because the stakes are "live" or "die"!

Wow!

Why would someone steal food from his neighbor when he has the same? Also, in a syndicate, the community is encouraged to patrol itself. How long do you think a starving person would go unnoticed and unhelped in a community such as this? Give the man a sandwich and ask him to help you pick strawberries for the good of the community.

And what if the community simply does not have enough food, spread out, to support everyone? It might even be that combining yours+someone else's food keeps you alive for another day.

But hey, it can't happen, right? It won't happen, right?

And people will use critical thinking and not their emotions during a time of incredible stress, right?

In spain the anarcho-syndicate known as FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) took over a ritzy rich hotel. Before the revolution the poor were barely fed. When the anarchists rose up they told the rich they are no longer rich. They are just the same as everyone else and if they dont like it then get the fuck out. Anyways, they took over the hotel and converted it into a peoples kitchen. Food was free for anyone who was hungry. Im not talking crap food either, or some kind of soup kitchen. People were encouraged to help the community, but not required. Pick up trash from the streets. If you are an electrician we have a short over here in the kitchen, etc, etc..

Gee, that sounds remarkably self-sustaining. I guess we can look up FAI and find something to inspect today.

...

...

Nope, haven't found anything.

Still, those anarchists really got the right idea? So we should see more of this in Spain, right?

...

...

...

Damn this is hard!

Might as well accuse me of disregarding the Code of Hammurabi for all I care. anarchists are not traditionalists. What matters is the here and now. What matters is people today.

You're a fucking idiot if you think the Code of Hammarubi and modern day English Law/Napoleonic Law are comparable. For one thing, the Code was simply an assignment of act to punishment-style text.

Modern Law includes:
- criteria for judgement, guilt and burden of proof
- clear and established protocols
- precedents/focus on historical context
- methods for appealing against a judgement

And that is the most generalist, brain dead approximation I can think of!

But, hurr-durr, we might as well call a bird a gecko for all I care.

You made that quite clear in your last post. I know... its stupid.

Permit me to illustrate the depth of my regard.