Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Devling]

Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, and only anarcho-capitalists actually believe they're anarchists.  Everyone else sees the word as an oxymoron.

[SalmonGod]

Edit:  aahhh sorry I didn't mean to double post...

Without any rules why would I not harm others and what would be done if I did, and with some rules, what is to enforce them?

And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?

[Devling]

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?

They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.

[Descan]

Who makes the rules if there are no rulers?
I'm not stating this in a smartass way, I'm honestly asking.
Every group has to have some kind of director, or at least a spokesman.

Um, Occupy doesn't seem to need one...

[SalmonGod]

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?

They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.

Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.

[Devling]

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?

They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.

Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.

They can make people do things. They have power over other people. They are rulers. Or leaders, but that means the same thing. It's just softer language.

[SalmonGod]

Everyone does.  And why do directors or spokesmen have to be rulers?

They wield power over other people, that is pretty much the definition of ruler.
I don't have monarchical king, but I deal with rulers all the time.

Why does a spokesman for a group have to wield power over the group?  Why does one who facilitates organization of a group have to wield power over a group?  They may occupy a position that they can use to some self-advantage, but that is definitely not equivalent to rulership.

They can make people do things. They have power over other people. They are rulers. Or leaders, but that means the same thing. It's just softer language.

Why do they need the ability to make people do things?  Just because that's how things tend to operate in the world today doesn't mean that's how things must necessarily be.  A person can organize a group because they actually want to work together, not because they're being made to by threat of consequence, and in that situation the organizer is not a ruler.  They're just a person with a job like everyone else.

[Devling]

So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.

[alexandertnt]

And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

We have the courts to provide recourse for their victims. They do to in a way that adheres to a structure instead of "whatever the victim feels like". What would this reprisal be? Revenge killing from a family member? Which could create an endless loop of payback crimes. It seems that such a system would be very vunerable to strong, irrational emotional.

Here is another scenario. What if I diddnt do anything wrong but the "victim" is convinced otherwise. what shields me from the "victims" recourse here?


Also what would happen in the scenario where 2 nearly equal groups of people have a strong but opposite opinion on a rule/enforcing a rule?

Why do they need the ability to make people do things?  Just because that's how things tend to operate in the world today doesn't mean that's how things must necessarily be.  A person can organize a group because they actually want to work together, not because they're being made to by threat of consequence, and in that situation the organizer is not a ruler.  They're just a person with a job like everyone else.

What if some people of that group disagree with others?

Besides, what you are saying sounds more like communism (the original definition, not the red-scare definition).

[SalmonGod]

So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.

Or a group of people organized themselves on the basis that they wanted to work together to do something, and one among them was appointed to the purpose of helping them work together effectively.

[Devling]

So a person organized other people, causing them to do something that they wouldn't normally do.
Like a ruler/leader/whatever.
It's part of the language, there has never been and probably never will be a group of people completely without leaders.

Or a group of people organized themselves on the basis that they wanted to work together to do something, and one among them was appointed to the purpose of helping them work together effectively.

So a person.
Who leads them.
Like a leader.
We are going in circles, and it is not productive.

[SalmonGod]

And the nature of rules written and enforced by a ruler only allows for a limited class of people to harm others with no recourse for their victims.  Without rulers one who harms another has no structure to shield themselves from reprisal.

We have the courts to provide recourse for their victims.

We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

They do to in a way that adheres to a structure instead of "whatever the victim feels like". What would this reprisal be? Revenge killing from a family member? Which could create an endless loop of payback crimes. It seems that such a system would be very vunerable to strong, irrational emotional.

Here is another scenario. What if I diddnt do anything wrong but the "victim" is convinced otherwise. what shields me from the "victims" recourse here?

This isn't really relevant, because I was only demonstrating that the existence of rules, especially as created and enforced by a ruler, doesn't necessarily deter acts of harm.  The natural fact that people have a tendency to form communities and look out for each other deters the acts of harm that people are most concerned with just as effectively and more equally.  For every "what if" you can throw at me about people acting like manipulative or deluded assholes and potentially getting away with it in the absence of rules, I can point to 5 examples of this happening in the real world today with the blessing of law.

Also what would happen in the scenario where 2 nearly equal groups of people have a strong but opposite opinion on a rule/enforcing a rule?

Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

Besides, what you are saying sounds more like communism (the original definition, not the red-scare definition).

Stateless communism is a form of anarchy.

So a person.
Who leads them.
Like a leader.
We are going in circles, and it is not productive.

A leader can be many things.  It doesn't have to be a ruler.  That's my point.  A leader is not a ruler unless they force people to do things against their will by threat of consequence.  I call it Coercive Authority.  Anarchy only has a problem with rulers.

[alexandertnt]

And that leader would have more power than the average worker. It would seem that work groups with leaders that are more knowledgable than the average worker would outperform leaderless groups, so they would become the norm.

How to choose the leader?

Maby we could vote for a leader
Maby the leader had more friends and influence
Maby they were the son of the previous leader

This is why I dont see anarchy as being sustainable. It all seems to lead back to a leader, or someone with power somehow.

We have courts to enforce the law.  If the law itself is what creates a victim, then the victim has no recourse.

What? Yes they do. The offender can be thrown in jail, sued for compensation etc as determined by the courts. If someone stole $5000 dollars form you and you sued sucessfully for $5000, is that not recourse? Wouldn't people find it preferable to have some organisation manage this instead of stealing back the $5000 themselves?

This isn't really relevant, because I was only demonstrating that the existence of rules, especially as created and enforced by a ruler, doesn't necessarily deter acts of harm.  The natural fact that people have a tendency to form communities and look out for each other deters the acts of harm that people are most concerned with just as effectively and more equally.  For every "what if" you can throw at me about people acting like manipulative or deluded assholes and potentially getting away with it in the absence of rules, I can point to 5 examples of this happening in the real world today with the blessing of law.

My point is to show that anarchy would just collapse back into a system of government, due to the what-if's that I was bringing up. So rules do need some form of governence, or else they either become ineffective and poorly defined so as to not function effectively, or end up encouraging a form of government to come into existance. It was most certainly not laws not being manipulatable (which they are) nor was it even to show that anarchy may be worse than government/rulers etc.

Ideally, these groups would come to an agreement and/or break off association.

And if not? If it were significant enough (eg food distribution) it seems like they would from groups to represent themselves.

This is the reason I dont see the sustainability of anarchy. Many common situations people find themselves in seem to lead to some form of governence.

[Reelya]

Not every form of governance needs to be coercive. Look at Anarcho-Syndicalism as practices in 1930's Spain, or at the management policies of the company Semco in Brazil. Semco is a paeticularly strong example of distributed decision making. The only management structure of the company is a forum of worker's delegates, and each work group elects those delegates on an ad-hoc basis, so if they start becoming authoritarian, then they just get booted back to the rank and file, and another guy is picked. Also, all workers jointly interview and vote on new hires for their work groups, so there is no power concentration with the delegates. The delegates mainly coordinate already-decided matters and facilitate communication between teams. All important / policy matters are voted on by the workers.

With this power structure, the company's annual turnover grew from $4 million per annum, up to $200 million per annum, which proves it works, and it's pretty much a text-book application of Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas. Plus, before the current CEO took over, the previous style of the company was extremely hierarchical, and run almost like a Gulag, where armed guards searched everyone leaving for the day, to check they didn't steal anything. By using generous profit-sharing, they aligned the worker's interests with the company (and if you steal, you're stealing from yourself and your friends, not just "the company"), and could do away with the elaborate security (showing how a liberal society with equitable economics doesn't need the massive surveillance).

Another thing to remember is that Anarchists promote voluntary membership associations. Don't like the rules the group voted on? Leave and go solo or make your own group. You forgo the benefits and services that group provides, but you're free to go it alone. Current governments do not let you leave (or at least, they own you, as a logical outcome of you being in their turf).