Saturday, July 9, 2011
Why we shouldn't leave anyone in charge
1. Leaving a set group of exclusive people in charge of society necessarily causes good ideas to get excluded from the meme pool.
2. On the other hand, getting rid of government really only means that a manmade government will be replaced by nature. This is why anarchism fails.
3. Therefore, the solution is to be ruled not by men, and not by nature, but by a methodology.
There is no President of the scientific community; on the other hand, "cryptozoologists" aren't considered real scientists for a reason.
All decisions should be made within the parameters of something akin to the scientific community; there is no qualitative difference between "We shouldn't waste resources" and "E=mc^2".
Posted by Leaving Society at 8:21 PM
Labels: foundational solutions, governmental systems, idearchy
13 comments:
Francois TremblayJuly 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM
"2. On the other hand, getting rid of government really only means that a manmade government will be replaced by nature. This is why anarchism fails."
Sorry, nope. That's not what Anarchism is. Anarchism is the systematic opposition to hierarchies. Not "to be replaced by nature."
Reply
Leaving SocietyJuly 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM
So all variants of communism are also variants of anarchism? It's impossible to have regulation and centralization without hierarchy?
In order to improve ourselves and clean this mess up, we'll need, at the minimum, evaluations of individual competency and self-consistency. Anarchism is the antithesis to this ideal.
Reply
Leaving SocietyJuly 31, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Also, on a side note, I fail to understand your marriage of anarchism and antinatalism. I'm assuming that you are aware that most anarchists are not antinatalists, and vice versa.
It is far more efficient to have centrally administered protocols and standards -- including ones pertinent to ideation, or the process of forming and selecting ideas -- than it is to live without such things. In theory, a hierarchy is not necessary for the existence of common goals and ideals. See Wikipedia and the scientific community for more information.
Reply
Leaving SocietyJuly 31, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Final thought: It is neither the state nor its subordinates who are at fault for human shortcomings; instead, it is a poor (and poorly understood) process for forming and regulating information. Fix the process and you won't need to do away with "the state," because suddenly, the state is an abstraction presiding over ALL groups, leaving no one in particular in charge.
In this environment, groups would form to complete projects -- not to create divisions between themselves and the rest of the population.
Reply
Francois TremblayJuly 31, 2011 at 2:44 PM
"In order to improve ourselves and clean this mess up, we'll need, at the minimum, evaluations of individual competency and self-consistency. Anarchism is the antithesis to this ideal."
... what? That doesn't even make any sense. How does the rejection of hierarchy implies the rejection of evaluation? You do realize we evaluate everything in society, right?
Reply
Francois TremblayJuly 31, 2011 at 2:47 PM
"Also, on a side note, I fail to understand your marriage of anarchism and antinatalism. I'm assuming that you are aware that most anarchists are not antinatalists, and vice versa."
Yes... so what? Is this an argument from popularity? Upholding both positions is the only consistent attitude, if you believe it is wrong to impose harm.
"It is far more efficient to have centrally administered protocols and standards -- including ones pertinent to ideation, or the process of forming and selecting ideas -- than it is to live without such things."
You are deliberately trying to write in an obscure way. "centrally administered protocols of ideation"? Are we talking about mind-control here? How could you think that would be good??
I don't really see any point in debating with someone who thinks mind-control is good.
Reply
Leaving SocietyJuly 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM
"... what? That doesn't even make any sense. How does the rejection of hierarchy implies the rejection of evaluation? You do realize we evaluate everything in society, right?"
Anarchism rejects hierarchy, but its rejection of hierarchy does not define it, because other ideologies also reject hierarchy. Anarchism is defined as a rejection of a state, or central authority.
When mentioning evaluation, I noted that it was a minimum requirement. I also specified the type of evaluation. To be clearer, I will state that I'm in favor of a society where people are conditioned and tested prior to being deemed capable of contributing. How would such a system be implemented under anarchism, which has no central authority capable of administering the tests?
Reply
Leaving SocietyJuly 31, 2011 at 3:21 PM
"Yes... so what? Is this an argument from popularity? Upholding both positions is the only consistent attitude, if you believe it is wrong to impose harm."
It's not an argument for or against either anarchism or antinatalism, but rather, a statement about your apparent belief that the logical choice for antinatalists is anarchism. How efficient would it be to promote the end of procreation while simultaneously advocating that no one impose any rules on anyone else?
In anarchism, how do rules get enforced if not through either imposition or education? What is the third alternative, and why is it more efficient than the former two options? If there is no alternative, and anarchism is simply about there being no rules, then why is it superior to government?
"You are deliberately trying to write in an obscure way. 'centrally administered protocols of ideation'? Are we talking about mind-control here? How could you think that would be good??"
We are all mind-controlled by our environments; we are not free from influence, and in fact do not spontaneously think anything. If we fix the negative parts of the environment, then the manner in which we get "mind-controlled" will improve. Again, this is impossible in an anarchist society, which doesn't seem particularly concerned with finding justification for existence or unifying the human species under common values.
If we want to eliminate a negative, then we determine its causes in the environment, eliminate those causes, and observe the results in the humans exposed to the modified environment.
"I don't really see any point in debating with someone who thinks mind-control is good."
Why so sensationalist? I'm certainly not using scare words when describing your arguments, so why are you doing so when describing mine? Are you aware that the substance of a thing is all that matters -- not the connotations of the name that you give it? Are you aware of how many people commit this fallacy in an effort to dominate an argument? It's media tactics 101.
Reply
Francois TremblayJuly 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM
"Anarchism rejects hierarchy, but its rejection of hierarchy does not define it, because other ideologies also reject hierarchy. Anarchism is defined as a rejection of a state, or central authority."
No... sorry. You may think that's the definition of Anarchism, but it's not Anarchism as Anarchists define it.
"How efficient would it be to promote the end of procreation while simultaneously advocating that no one impose any rules on anyone else?"
Perfectly efficient, since one does not interfere with the other.
"If there is no alternative, and anarchism is simply about there being no rules, then why is it superior to government?"
Again, you are trying to define Anarchism for yourself. Anarchism is not anomie. Social rules should be established from the bottom-up, to serve human values, not institutional values. This is superior to government for the same reason that any egalitarian alternative is superior to a hierarchy.
"Again, this is impossible in an anarchist society, which doesn't seem particularly concerned with finding justification for existence or unifying the human species under common values."
The only alternative to what you're saying is a dictatorship which enforces values top-down on the entire "human species." Is that what you believe in?
Of course I don't believe we should "unify the human species." I am not a dictator. I believe in freedom. It's preposterous to argue against Anarchism on the basis that it is not dictatorial.
"Why so sensationalist?"
Look, I am trying to understand your conceptual mush. As far as I can tell, you believe in mind-control. If you don't, then what exactly DO you believe in? You seem to be very eager to defend hierarchies, but it's not clear which you believe in and which you don't believe in.
For example, do you believe in slavery? Why or why not?
Reply
Leaving SocietyAugust 1, 2011 at 7:45 PM
"No... sorry. You may think that's the definition of Anarchism, but it's not Anarchism as Anarchists define it."
dictionary.com:
a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
Wikipedia:
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] Anarchists seek to diminish or abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.
"Perfectly efficient, since one does not interfere with the other."
As stated in my other comment, imposition is a means to an end, and is thus not inherently positive or negative; it's what's being imposed, why it's being imposed, and in what ways it alters quantities and qualities that determines whether an act of imposition is either positive or negative.
"The only alternative to what you're saying is a dictatorship which enforces values top-down on the entire 'human species.' Is that what you believe in?"
I believe in a combination of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideation_(idea_generation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project
http://nobadmemes.blogspot.com/2010/12/idearchy-continued.html
Do any of the above links refer to dictatorships?
"It's preposterous to argue against Anarchism on the basis that it is not dictatorial."
...And even more so to strawman my stance in such a manner!
"Look, I am trying to understand your conceptual mush."
It sounds like you are getting emotional. Perhaps you should stop and realize that I am attacking your ideas and not your person?
"You seem to be very eager to defend hierarchies"
See the above links. I see no rational basis for the existence of hierarchies.
Reply
Francois TremblayAugust 2, 2011 at 12:46 AM
"dictionary.com:"
Is not an Anarchist site. You fail. We do not let dictionaries define what we believe in.
"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] Anarchists seek to diminish or abolish authority in the conduct of human relations."
You appear to have missed the last sentence there. That's exactly what I'm sayuing.
"As stated in my other comment, imposition is a means to an end"
Nope. Sorry. Consent is a necessary (but not sufficient, by a long shot) condition for freedom. The case for imposition being anything but evil doesn't even get off the ground.
"The only alternative to what you're saying is a dictatorship which enforces values top-down on the entire 'human species.' Is that what you believe in?"
I believe in a combination of the following:
"Do any of the above links refer to dictatorships?"
Yep.
"...And even more so to strawman my stance in such a manner!"
If it's so hard for me to understand what you're saying, and I am first-rate at English comprehension, then your comments must be pure gibberish.
"It sounds like you are getting emotional."
Now you're posturing. Just more crap.
"See the above links. I see no rational basis for the existence of hierarchies."
If that was the case, you wouldn't be arguing with me.
Reply
Francois TremblayAugust 2, 2011 at 12:47 AM
By the way, I didn't know you were the owner of this blog. Well, that makes even less sense. I can read and understand your entries just fine, so I don't know why you are having such trouble communicating...
Reply
Leaving SocietyJanuary 29, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Well, Francois did turn out to be kind of a jerk, but that aside, here are the problems that seem to exist with anarcho-communism:
1. Equity comes before equality. No two people on Earth are absolutely equal; the equality myth is not based on any kind of science, and comes from people who lived several hundred years ago.
2. Even with equity, you have to remember that freedom, regardless of any connotations of equality, is a religious ideal. Even freedom of speech is suspect if the speaker is speaking in a loop and entirely unwilling to make any amendments or try new approaches, for this promotes stubbornness as a value in society. If someone is unwilling to accept the tentatively constructed baseline ethos of society, then he or she should be eliminated in one way or another (exile, prison, rehabilitation, death), depending on circumstance of the case.
3. Agile methods should be supplemented by meritocratic practices. If you're schizophrenic, mentally disabled, permanently high on opiates, or a religious zealot, then until you have been rehabilitated (if you can be), you are not allowed to participate in societal discussions or have opinions. If you are not an aerospace engineer, then until you have provided at least one insightful suggestion or demonstrated a technical disposition capable of being mutated into that of an engineer, you are not allowed to participate in aerospace engineering discussions or have opinions on aerospace engineering.
4. Who cares about empowering a particular group of people or superficially allocating "control" of means of production to "people" as they exist in various conglomerates? My computer decides for itself which process threads require more devotion by a particular CPU core, and it doesn't feel liberated or empowered as a result; it merely does what's efficient and valuable.
This might all sound like fascism, but that's only because most people are only interested in "equality" and the "right to have an opinion" to the extent that it saves their asses. They're not interested in protecting anyone else aside from themselves and their families, let alone in pressing a play button somewhere and actually watching their opinion in action.
