What is your proposed method of keeping the peace and making intelligent decisions that effect things on a large scale in the context of an anarchism?

Nov 2012
11,331
9,718
nirvana
The purpose of anarchy is so that no one is oppressed and so that decisions in society aren't made just to benefit those in charge. Democracy IS mob rule unless it is not an absolute democracy and the masses are much less stupid and thus capable of making logical decisions. When it comes to deciding our goals, that is something we decide based on what is the most logical, progress-inducing and mutually beneficial course of action. And the one who decides which methodology to use I suppose is the smartest one, but due to the balance between individuals, democracy and methodology it can't really be forced on anyone, society would just listen (if the culture was enlightened, this does not at all apply to humans as they are conditioned to think now) to whoever had the soundest methodology and the best ideas because that is the best apparent thing to do.

You say we need authority, but without individual choices, democracy and methodology alongside the mere mandate of authority what good is authority in and of itself? The problems you bring up with the other 3 are mitigated by each other's presence, we would be protected from mob rule by methodology and individual liberty, we would be protected from individual selfishness by democracy and methodology, we would be protected from being a cold calculating technocratic dictatorship by democracy and the will of individuals keeping the methodology based in achieving what is good for the people.

Why does the mere "because I say so" factor of someone having a socially constructed position of authority have any relevance in a rational society? The only authority we need is the authority of individuals over themselves, the authority of the community over the means of production, and the authority of what is objectively logical.
Why does the mere "because I say so" factor of someone having a socially constructed position of authority have any relevance in a rational society?

Religion.
 
Jul 2014
16,038
10,326
massachusetts
...
Why does the mere "because I say so" factor of someone having a socially constructed position of authority have any relevance in a rational society? The only authority we need is the authority of individuals over themselves, the authority of the community over the means of production, and the authority of what is objectively logical.
And that is called communism, I'm not saying it's bad, but I will say it doesn't exist.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,271
29,527
La La Land North
If you want to call it a government it can't be worse than a government.
Yes it can be depending on how it becomes powerful. If it's some dictator taking over by force, odds are that will be worse.
 
Aug 2018
250
79
USA
Yes it can be depending on how it becomes powerful. If it's some dictator taking over by force, odds are that will be worse.
It will be a mixture of methodology and democracy with no central authority if I have my way.
 
May 2019
244
29
US
The authority that comes from democracy or methodology is not authority in the same sense. Authority in the classical sense means that an individual has power over other individuals, and what they say goes simply because they have authority. Democratic authority is a kind where one person does not have more of a say than another, but rather it is the collective decision that has the authority.


Your notion of a “classical sense” of authority is rooted in your bias against current authority, and not in fact. Authority from democracy is still authority, and it still sucks for the guy whose values contradict the majority democratic vote. That guy may be thinking that that their authority from democracy is there merely because they say so. Nonetheless, for any of your proposed institutions to make a substantial difference, they must be authoritative. If they are, you have a government.



Methodology is impersonal, there is no mandate involved, just someone pointing to something that objectively works or at least appears to be the best option. Methodology can be abused sure, but not when the community itself has the power and everyone is allowed to propose something rather than any institution or handful of social engineers being in charge of it.
I’m not only talking about abuse, I’m talking about honest disagreement. There are multiple methodologically valid ways to approach an issue. Reasonable people will disagree on these grounds as well as others. Science develops with disagreement of reasonable people. On cutting edge matters, if there is a consensus then there is insufficient critical thinking.



When it comes to establishing the goals for society it is a lot more obvious than you might think. The most logical things to strive for are progress technologically and knowledge-wise, to build upon ecosystems, life and even existence itself rather than destroy them or let them be destroyed, and to create conditions that are optimal for everything and everyone in general. These are objectively the highest ideals and the purest standard of achievement as a civilization.
The only thing made obvious by this paragraph is your opinion. The fact that you believe it is “objectively the highest ideal” indicates only that you may find extreme measures justifiable in pursuit of these ideals. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that your proposed society is actually the best way to achieve your ideal, given human being as such may not even be conducive to universal agreement with your opinion.



basing a civilization on those ideals would make it so that what is in your best interest is that which is in civilizations interest because the economy would be based on co-operation rather than competition.
There’s a lot here that doesn’t follow. Focusing on developing knowledge and technology while enhancing ecosystems, life, and existence presents plenty of trade offs within itself, let alone against other values that people will have that you have not accounted for. It is sufficiently vague that you could say “who wouldn’t want to enhance life?” while leaving aside the fact that this doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. Furthermore, economies aren’t primarily competitive or primarily co-operative. Is basketball a competitive sport or a team sport? It’s both. So is the economy, but more complex. Which reminds me, who picks up the trash in your proposed society? Why do they do it?



There would be no incentive to be a greedy/destructive person because you would get more out of life by being part of that civilization than you ever could by f&%@ing it over. It would be like stealing one cookie from the pan and burning your own fingers when you could have just helped bake them and gotten as many as you want.
Sadly, this describes a current situation where people make the wrong decision all the time. There are already people who would benefit greatly from operating within the current society’s legal framework. Yet they choose to act outside of that framework, much to their detriment.



As for determining the "smartest" one that would be done by the methodologies they propose. No one person or group would be held above the rest, like I said everyone would be free to propose something and whatever works the best is what we will go with. Whoever has the best ideas is listened to, but not in the sense that they have authority, because we are talking about a rational society where people are conditioned to have critical thinking skills and to understand much more than what people generally understand now. If that was not the case, nothing I am saying could work.

There are billions of people in the world. If every opinion is to be considered, you will never get off the ground. The brightest people would find each other and listen to each other. That’s reasonable. If determining methodology is the goal, it is illogical to pay any attention at all to the billions of sub-par guesses that would be presented. The result would be an authoritative hierarchy. And if their decisions are to actually be implemented, someone would need to enforce them on those billions who do not agree, and not for irrational reasons, but because they individually have better things to do.




The "tyranny of the proletariat" you speak of was just Marx's way of saying "democracy". When you read the communist manifesto it can sound scary and evil if you don't know where he is coming from in the context of his philosophy as a whole but what he was really going for is a socialist republic run by democratically elected leaders in the communist party of whatever nation is theoretically transitioning to communism. The state is not supposed to be a dictatorship, but rather the part of the proletariat that plans and organizes things and is totally subject to the collective will of the community. The state was supposed to "wither away" as people become more capable of self governance and organizing themselves as a collective.

I’m familiar Marx’s works beyond the Manifesto. To insist on the rosiest of outlooks is to ignore plenty in Marx to the contrary. I don’t find the notion of a state withering away to be well-considered. This idea is why Communism only ever gets far enough for people to say that it isn’t Communism. The stated end goal is an impossible carrot held out in front of an ultimately enslaved population, while believers fortunate enough to be on the outside looking in can say “that’s not what Marx meant”.



There’s another detail of your future society that I wonder about. Is it global? If not, who decides whom will fight for the common defense?
 
May 2019
244
29
US
It is unjustified optimism unless the way humans are conditioned to think is changed and the current norms we mistake for "human nature" are altered into something better.
The belief that we can condition away that which actually turns out to be human nature has been the cause of much torture and suffering.