/sci/ - Science & Math

It's vacuous.

/thread

http://www.google.com/search?&q=anarchism+critique

The concept of everyone doing what they want with no organised leadership or consultation on end-goals is self-defeating.
Modern economics, particularly game theory, would probably be a good place to start.

States on anarchy have a shit-tier standard of living. Anarchy also inevitably leads to rule by the most powerful.

anarchism is based on the assumption that "the group knows best".

however, said group is made of individuals who will be much more inclined to side with whatever gives themselves the advantage.

anarchism is simply not thought out either. lets say you make an anarchist society... who regulates it? who enforces rules?

eventually, you establish a regulatory body who listens to to collective social body.

eventually, more and more of the decision making process is moved into a specialized group who can make informed decisions until, lo and behold, you end up with essentially what we see today.

you NEED a governing body. name me a single large community that has existed without one. plenty have tried, but all fall apart once they start to grow.

I am exactly the type of person that would favor anarchism. This gives me unique insight into the types of problems that can occur, having created anarchistic microcosms in my social circles.

Conviction can be an indication of knowledge, and anarchy can prevent ignorant people from trying to influence decisions and groups. However, knowledge only drives conviction because knowledge is a source of power, and power without knowledge can also drive conviction.

Meaning a person with lots of martial prowess and weaponry will simply try to force his way just because he can.

If everyone were super intelligent, it would be different. That powerful person would simply reason that even if he is the biggest fish for now, if he acts selfishly everyone will gang up on him. But not everyone is that smart, and anarchy simply devolves into rampant crime.

Furthermore, a person who does realize that can also simply gather more power and become a paranoid dictator like Saddam who can prevent people from stopping him. Then an equally powerful force must be marshaled to stop him. Either way, it is no longer anarchy.

>>2875236
Game theory supposes that cooperation is the most efficient way of winning.

Our modern economics is based on people being greedy and competitive though.

I think a collective or "balanced" anarchy would have a lot fewer repercussions than any system we have had so far. Everyone would have a say.

to see the effects of anarchy, you just have to look at some african countries. i'm pretty sure somalia doesn't have a government in place as of now

>>2875255
>Conviction can be an indication of knowledge

seriously?

ever heard the phrase "the strongest opinions are held by the most ignorant, and the more ignorant they are, the stronger their opinion"?

fuck, just look at the american religious south. theres a lot of conviction down there based entirely on ignorance, yet they remain unequivocally steadfast in their belief that evolution is wrong and evil.

>>2875255
>I'm a pretentious faggot.
Gotcha.

>>2875260
That Nash stuff is bs, and really a subset of Adams economic theory.

If I sell you a box, with contents that have a value magically dependent on sociology, psychology, physics or anything else, you need to know the value of the box before you can decide whether to buy it.

The example used in the movie about Nash is easy to debunk. #1 I would get the blonde's attention and everyone else would fail. #2 Even if not #1, then the choice to cooperate is only valuable in that particular case not as a general rule...

>>2875287
So in other words you are insecure and unable to express yourself, and thus lash out at people who are in an unintelligent manner..

>>2875321
considering the numerous tautologies and the sesquipedalian nature of your post, i think he is quite justified calling you pretentious.

While it is true no long-lasting, large anarchist societies have existed yet (although it reigned quite succesfully during the Spanish civil war), claiming anarchism itself is not possible is simply not true.

As the group gets smaller the effectiveness and plausability of anarchism grows exponentially. As community technology progresses in the future this number of people anarchism can function on is going to grow (to a limit, though, because as far as I know the human brain has a limit to the amount of people it can store as acquaintances).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

>>2875260

Modern economics in society is a bit of a bastardisation, because people are still inherently greedy. Given the choice between £10 million and £20 million, some people will kill their kids for 20. So the emphasis shouldn't be on winning, but rather simply improving the outcome for everyone (perhaps only slightly).

Transparency should be a fundamental part of a modern society: do you job well, the public find out about it and agree, you get rewarded accordingly; be a tool and spend taxes on hookers and blow and you go to prison.
This is why I am seriously disheartened by people who condemn things like wikileaks - we have mutually dependent pockets of corruption within most governments who have the authority and influence to ensure that most of their deeds go unreported.

>>2875276

A strong opinion != conviction. That is the whole problem with modern society. If you take most of those ignorant people trying to force their stupid ideas on others, and threaten to fight them to the death over their stupid beliefs the vast majority of them will back down especially if you catch them before they have been heavily indoctrinated. These types of people KNOW they are ignorant and do not feel strongly enough to risk their health.

But instead of accepting their own ignorance they beg the police to threaten and stop anyone who tries to challenge their conviction so they can go on influencing society with their ignorant beliefs.

There is a minor amount of conviction that arises from things like sharing insecurities. This is why people like that feel the right to say or do anything at all to try and influence others.

But the will to risk your personal health over something does not come from such a place. It comes from the need to correct wrongs, and knowledge of why and how to do it.

Sometimes that need can be logically extended or illogically warped to other things. If you meet someone who is clearly wrong but who doesn't back down when threatened, the next step is to logically attack their beliefs. This weakens their conviction.

>>2875359

>community technology

Derp.

communication technology*

Anarchism: The idea that it's not a good idea to give any group permission to use force to achieve their goals.

Really, the most you can say is that the transition between government and anarchy would be tumultuous, and so bad for the half generation stuck in the middle, or that one day a new gangster or warlord might come along that gets to have a government again. Otherwise, government just wastes peoples money and concentrates power and corruption in one place.

>>2875442
right... any GROUP... that just means the use of force is left to the individual. Which is kind of ironic because there is no group powerful enough to prevent any group from amassing power...

The only way it makes any sense at all is because a single person can possibly prevent a group from taking power.

>>2875462

So long as you agree that government is the same kind of group with the same kind of legitimacy as a warlord or gangster, and you're okay with that, that's fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Labor_Commune

>Several of the participants in the commune wrote memoirs of their experiences.

>"Out of the stormy, boundless ocean of human life, with all its infinitely varied aspirations and fates, suddenly one part of it was caught up in a powerful maelstrom, whirled together into one unit, and torn away from the rest of the mass. It was carried off on the foamy crest of the wave. Then with a mighty surge it was lifted up into the air, toward the sun, and was thrown with powerful force against a cliff. It broke into thousands of droplets, sparkling with all the colors of the rainbow, then fell back into the ocean and merged with it. And it was no more. And it seemed that there had never been anything. But there was! And the memory of it lives on in the souls of those who experienced it as something bright, great, necessary, and joyous."

>—Boris Mazurin, Memoirs Of Peasant Tolstoyans In Soviet Russia, p. 108

>yfw you'll never be part of something so liberating

>>2875373
none of this will be solved by anarchy.

you are seriously trying to say anarchy will make ignorant people shut up?

L.O.L.

>>2875505

Anarchy would make it more difficult for ignorant people to get into a position of power over normals.

Remember how dangerously close Sarah fucking Palin was to having her finger on the button?

>>2875538
democracy is based on the decision power being spread equally among the population, hence ignorant people = stupid choices = ignorant politicians.

anarchy would not fix this. anarchy would not magically make people smarter. anarchy would not stop stupid people from backing stupid decisions.

>>2875791
Anarchy would make people smarter, not magically though. For one part by giving them access to a better general education (by removing economic discrimination, age separation, authoritarian methods of teaching, reorganizing the balance between formation and information...), for another by suppressing the institutions and individuals that take profit from their cultural domination over stupid people, and that try (explicitly or not) and make them stupid to this goal.

Anarchism is just a period between different types of governments. Eventually a government will rise out of Anarchy, even it is small, tribal government, because governments grow in size over time.

True Anarchism is a form of government where a group of individual has equal power. The appeal of this is each individual's voice and opinion matters just as much as the next guy. It's a government of peers and equals. However a true anarchism is physically impossible to exist in this world. Eventually some people learn to be more persuasive than others, somebody may become subjugated, or even ostracized. Eventually one person will become more or less powerful than the other individuals in the group. You could try to correct for this problem by distributing power and wealth, but then you create a socialism. Anything you would do to try to fix this problem would give rise to a new form of government that is not Anarchism.

Anarchism is a blank slate where everyone is equals, however it mirrors the law of entropy that as time progresses people become less and less equal to each other. Because anarchism is like a blank slate one thing can be said about it, it's the root of all government. Anarchism can not exist for very long or perhaps not exist at all, but before there was any recognizable form of government there was anarchism. So all forms of government today are the offspring or branches/offshoots of anarchism. You could say that true anarchism is like an unfertilized embryo. A blank slate, perfect in form, waiting to be born, but not technically alive. At the moment of conception, or the moment anarchistic government becomes active, each cell is identical to one another, but eventually pattern start forming in the embryo's cells and they are no longer all identical. How it grows and evolves depends on what or who you have put into it.


tl;dr
anarchism can not exist because true equality can not and will NEVER exist (think entropy)

>>2876466
>Anarchy would make people smarter

no, it would not. your claim of "equal access" is simply ludicrous.

a lack of government wont stop discrimination, and the fact that you think it does just goes to show how short sighted most anarchists are.

this is not a utopia, true equality will never be achieved. we are hardwired, as a species, to give ourselves the best edge we can over other people.

>>2878535
Not an anarchist, but science can help us overcome these things.

Also, we can overcome such things with self-discipline and meditation. But the masses are too fucking retarded.

ITT: people equating anarchy with anarchism

Fucking morons. At least look at wikipedia.

Anarchy will never work because there will always be someone to take charge. If there was no government, the streets would be ruled by gangs, the gang with the most members would rule.
Individuals can't be individual in a society.

>people equating socialist wet dreams with actual anarchism

>HURR WE HATE THE STATE SMASH CAPITALISM
>DONT CUT BENEFITS, INCREASE TAXES

Any anarchism that isn't Stirnerite Egoist Anarchism is basically just commie bullshit. Or Randroid bullshit.

>>2879688

this man speaks the truth.

as an anarcho-syndicalist, this is making my heas hurt.

>>2879755
Fuck off crypto-marxist scum.

Anarcho Communism is best society