People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[Violet]

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?

Because such powers are out of the hands of non-mods?
Because the forum structure holds that a member with a single post has that post equally as visible as the posts of the 10K member?
Because we have standards, and some members simply aren't up to them?
Because we have a very open forum, nearly anyone can join, and even spambots can get in at times?
Because this is a society with rules already, which provide a somewhat clear benchmark of when they are broken, and thus the examples are not completely equatable?

Why assume that because the statuesque is constantly 'weeding' translates to it must being so?
And why assume that 'no rules' means 'we let assholes walk all over us'? I don't care that I don't have any set-in-stone rules... but if you physically attack me you should expect a swift punch to the face by my girlfriend

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

I don't need any study to prove that people are generally good... because people are generally good. Hell, just today at a gas station a hispanic man returned us a quarter when we only needed 23 cents, smiling and joking about it as he did so. Just yesterday some guy who recognized me from a trans group cut (politely) through a crowd just to tell me that I passed... a week ago.

There are assholes, it's true. But unless they occupy a position of power it doesn't matter much. A couple bad apples spoil the bunch? I don't think so.

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).

I agree. The study is probably totally bogus. I notice many studies are. But does it matter, really? You already have your historical example of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci...el_Trabajo . Does it need to be proven again?

Add in the capability for actually robbing people and having them lose REAL money, then we'll see how "peaceful" and self sustaining these communities really are.

Crime, which you have probably noticed, is committed by a minority. I'd say mostly peaceful and self-sustaining. There will always be an urge to steal so long as there is anything worth stealing for. Is that so much that you would consider them non-"peaceful"?

Lifetime of such a social circle matters as well -- what good is a group if it lasts only a fraction of a lifetime, when we have long established institutions (universities et al) that easily outlast the typical lifetime. Knowledge and resource acquisition takes time, and the ethereal short lived nature of the game they studied does not take that into account.

Surely you are not suggesting that established institutions last forever? Because that would be ridiculous.

Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.

More like an extremely distrustful skeptic looking for corners in a circular room

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.

I could crow about the nice stuff, but why should I when revvie's probably responded 16 times already? What I would do, however...

Is question what this 'long term stability' entails... how long term? What does 'stability' in this sense mean? How could stability, as I understand it, be possible in the face of the rapid change that is entropy?

What kind of social dynamics? Do I need laws to go out and make friends, to find a lover, to raise children, to help someone in need out? No, I do not... so what is it that you think social dynamics has to do with laws... or are we using this differently as well? Yes, there's life in the real world, death too, there are resources to be managed, and there may even be 'bad apples'... but so fucking what? I do not see how anything is remotely different in people just because it's all too 'real'. I find that a sense of urgency, or prevalence, or actually needing to do something... is more of a motivator for doing 'good' than anything except appreciation for work already done.

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?

Somalia is not in anarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab

Quite separate from anarchy... 'Somalia' is a fractured state. I would not be surprised if there were to be 2 states where 'Somalia' is currently understood to be by some of the international community.

Bits of Somalia might be anarchistic (particularly in the south), but let's have some perspective please: THERE IS A FUCKING JIHAD GOING ON.

Perhaps the 'real world' is a little too far away for you to see it for what it is.

---

Holy cow people, and now I feel obligated to respond TT__TT

Well fuck that. I might respond, I might not. But right now I'm going to play some LoL.