Are any of you active members of political parties? This is just idle curiosity on my part, and not an attempt to make a big deal out of any one individuals choice here. If you are active in a political party could you tell us at what level?
Also does anyone know of any political figures who weigh in positively about Role-Playing, and Gaming in general? I know generally the impression, here in the United States, is that most politicians are not favorably inclined towards gaming in general. What about in Europe? South America? Russia? Australia?
I'm not active in any party; however, if Fred Thompson announces his candidacy I will look in to actively working for his campaign in some capacity.
I'm not active in local campaigns or anything, but I like to bitch about politics alot.
Does that count?
I keep myself informed, but I'm not a member of a party.
Quote from: WerekoalaI'm not active in any party; however, if Fred Thompson announces his candidacy I will look in to actively working for his campaign in some capacity.
Whether or not he likes role-playing games, he is the one candidate we know of who has
played roles.
- Ed C.
I am somewhat actively involved in the NDP party operations here in Canada (New Democratic Party, and all but a communist pinko party to most american political thought - but then our conservative party is barely conservative by American political standards. Definitely socialist in most, if not all, respects.)
I have never heard anyone speak out FOR RPGs, but I think most politicians are indifferent to them - they just are there. Not dangerous or satanic as others say - just a silly fucking game kids play - is the likely thought.
Well, I've worked on 2 congressional campaigns, a local (County comissioner) one, and if Thompson runs, I'll have a presidential campaign as well.
Not counting when my mom was in office - that's a given.
Quote from: shewolfWell, I've worked on 2 congressional campaigns, a local (County comissioner) one, and if Thompson runs, I'll have a presidential campaign as well.
Not counting when my mom was in office - that's a given.
Good to see you round these parts here, li'l lady. With the Jaybne avatar as well. Good to see some things don't change. :D
Last election cycle I worked on two campaigns one for city councilor and the other for mayor, the mayoral candidate (R) lost, the city councilor (D) won.
Another Fred Thompson fan here. I keep up on politics and engage in political debate, but have yet to see the benefit to joining a specific political group. I would be more inclined if I could do so in the manner that Robert Heinlein writes about in his book, Take back Your Government.
Although, many have declared me a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I decline to answer whether that is true or not. :D
Quote from: HackmastergeneralGood to see you round these parts here, li'l lady. With the Jaybne avatar as well. Good to see some things don't change. :D
4 different forums, 4 jayneitars. I'm pretty easy to spot :D
And I have to add that after the Republican Candidate (who was backed by Tancredo, of all people!) lost, I jumped to the Democrat. Because I couldn't vote for the witch (fuckit, the raging bitch) that beat out my guy :( And still won. Grrrrrrrr
I see modern politics as fundamentally ridiculous, so my methods of "participation" in modern political activities are themselves fairly ridiculous.
I have a membership in the Conservative Party of Canada. Not because I am a Conservative (though I was and I even used to canvas for them when I was younger) but because I enjoy the outraged reactions I get from my mostly left-leaning friends when I tell them that I am.
I take great pleasure in marching in various protests with a large American flag with Batman standing majestically in front of it while wearing a ChiCom hat. I always march at the front, so the local Kingston paper on at least one occasion had to take a weird, unbalanced shot of the front rank of marchers to cut me out.
The only part of politics I take seriously is advocating anarchism. I tend to see that as anathema to mass, party or electoral politics though. I prefer to do that one on one, through intense discussion, rather than by voting or some crap like that.
Anarchy is great...on a small scale. I really don't see it working on a large scale, like Canada, or the US.
But then again, it's been a long time (over 10 years) since my research...
Quote from: shewolfAnarchy is great...on a small scale.
Anarchy is great -- if you have the guns and the charisma to form your own dictatorship.
Otherwise it sucks on every scale.
Quote from: jeff37923Although, many have declared me a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I decline to answer whether that is true or not. :D
You can't be a member, I didn't see you at the annual barbecue. :raise:
My political involvement is pretty much confined to keeping myself informed on the issues, the occasional donation, and I've had yard signs a couple of times for various candidates.
Quote from: ElectroKittyAnarchy is great -- if you have the guns and the charisma to form your own dictatorship.
Otherwise it sucks on every scale.
You're doing it wrong!
heh heh. But seriously, that's not how it works.
Like how I practice communism. I'm not really advocating it as a governmental system, but it's real close to how my friends and I interact.
I am an election judge in the city wherein I reside, and I was in the city wherein I formerly resided. I sometimes assist in the local activities of a Congressman to whom I owe some gratitude and loyalty due to his being a good friend for many years to my father (and, by extension, my mother), despite political differences. I attend town hall meetings held by my state-level legislators to keep track of my state government's doings. That is the extent, in practical terms, of my political activity at this time.
Quote from: Thanatos02You're doing it wrong!
heh heh. But seriously, that's not how it works.
So how is anarchy supposed to work? I'm actually curious now, because from what I've read it looks like a dead end.
If you organize anarchy - then isn't the original idea out the window?
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarIf you organize anarchy - then isn't the original idea out the window?
- Ed C.
Anarchy as a political philosophy is not a synonym for chaos. An anarchic state is one in which there are no rulers, not no rules.
You can think of it as being like GM-less roleplaying.
Quote from: hgjsAnarchy as a political philosophy is not a synonym for chaos. An anarchic state is one in which there are no rulers, not no rules.
You can think of it as being like GM-less roleplaying.
So how does an anarchic state deal with its citizens who break the rules?
Quote from: jeff37923So how does an anarchic state deal with its citizens who break the rules?
I dunno. Maybe everyone beats them to death. Maybe they build race of perfectly just robots to keep the peace among them, but they rebel against humanity and trigger an apocalyptic war; and the son of the scientist who invented them -- using a suit of advanced armor built by his father -- becomes a champion of the struggle against the machines, evenually engaging the machine leader in a single combat that will decide the fate of the world, from which he emerges victorious, but not before the leader of the machines reveals that they had never rebelled against their original programming: the only way to make humanity perfectly peaceful was to enslave them.
Quote from: hgjsYou can think of it as being like GM-less roleplaying.
I never thought much of that idea either....
{{{:-)
- Ed C.
Quote from: jeff37923So how does an anarchic state deal with its citizens who break the rules?
There's no such thing as an anarchic state, and no one would be a "citizen" in an anarchy. There also wouldn't be any rules, in the sense of written laws established by some authority through the systematic application of violence.. Acts like killing another person etc. can be dealt with through all sorts of ways - whatever is proper to the situation. It's contrary to anarchism to advocate a single, systematic way that everyone must deal with some event. Some options might be shunning, rehabilitation, the institution of better safety protocols to prevent accidents, banishment, or heck, back-slaps and a round at the bar. There are no doubt an infinity of others, and each of us would have to decide and work this problem out in the particular instance, rather than simply dealing with it as an instantiation of an abstract universal principle of some sort.
OK, now I've just heard two very different takes on anarchy. One a bit tongue-in-cheek, but both against any kind of centralised authority. One version said that there had to be rules in place to function while the other one didn't. It also seems like while a centralised authority is discouraged, one would be acceptable in times of crisis - be it a robot revolution or a natural disaster.
Are there different types of anarchy? If there are, how do they differ in their approach? Have any of these been used as a form of government in the real world? If so, how successful was it and what was the size of the population?
Quote from: jeff37923Are there different types of anarchy?
In this modern age, you can get a fast answer to your every idle question.
Wikipedia > Anarchism > Schools of anarchist thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Schools_of_anarchist_thought)
Quote from: hgjsIn this modern age, you can get a fast answer to your every idle question.
Wikipedia > Anarchism > Schools of anarchist thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Schools_of_anarchist_thought)
Thank you for the link and I'll check it out, but I'd like to hear from the anarchy advocates as well to get a better understanding.
There are different types of anarchy. Just like there are different kinds of democracy, and just about every other kind of political arrangement. Both different kinds of theory and different kinds of practice.
The two most successful anarchist societies that I'm familiar with were a long-lasting form in Iceland during the mediaeval period, and anarcho-syndicalism in Spain in the 30's (which continues today in the form of the Mondragon cooperatives).
As for a "centralised authority" it depends upon how you mean this term. There probably would be "project leaders" and people who coordinated other people when they needed to work together as a group, and people who were respected as experts in a particular field and thus had their ideas followed by others.
On the other hand, it'd be contrary to most anarchists and anarchist theory to have an "authority" as the term is usually used in anarchist theory - a person or group whose use of coercion is considered automatically legitimate by all others, and who do use that coercion to force others to do what they want (whether that coercion takes the form of violence, deprivation, or whatever else).
For the record, I don't belong to any particular school or group of anarchists.
Laughing out Loud. (WTF?) Oh my fucking God...!
Anarchy?
Different forms?
Best joke I've seen on the internet.
Okay time to put some BABYON 5 DVDs on...or make some NPcs.
- Ed C.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe two most successful anarchist societies that I'm familiar with were a long-lasting form in Iceland during the mediaeval period, and anarcho-syndicalism in Spain in the 30's (which continues today in the form of the Mondragon cooperatives).
OK, are you talking about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930 - 1230 AD)? I've found some papers on that which I'm looking at now.
Once I'm done reading these I'll take a look at the anarco-syndicalism of 1930's Spain and its evolution into the Mondragon cooperatives.
Oh, and thanks.
Quote from: jeff37923Thank you for the link and I'll check it out, but I'd like to hear from the anarchy advocates as well to get a better understanding.
Ok, after reading up on "philosophical" anarchy, I'm changing my tune: the various forms of anarchy *could* work on a smaller scale, just like communism. However, they require the active, voluntary participation of every member of the community, which makes them -- like communism -- nothing more than a pipe dream.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe two most successful anarchist societies that I'm familiar with were a long-lasting form in Iceland during the mediaeval period, and anarcho-syndicalism in Spain in the 30's (which continues today in the form of the Mondragon cooperatives).
"Where is your king?"
"We don't HAVE a king! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
Quote from: jeff37923OK, are you talking about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930 - 1230 AD)? I've found some papers on that which I'm looking at now.
Once I'm done reading these I'll take a look at the anarco-syndicalism of 1930's Spain and its evolution into the Mondragon cooperatives.
Oh, and thanks.
No worries. And yeah, it is the Icelandic Commonwealth that I'm referring to.
Quote from: Werekoala"Where is your king?"
"We don't HAVE a king! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
"Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
"Be quiet!"
"Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
"Shut up!"
"I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"
"Shut up, will you? Shut up!"
"Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.'
"Shut up!"
"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
"Bloody peasant!"
"Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"
Quote from: KoltarOkay time to put some BABYON 5 DVDs on...or make some NPcs.
- Ed C.
Easier just to drown thought out with a loud noise, yes? It gets old, after a while. If you don't want to talk about it, why do you bother dicking around?
Koltar's a pugnacious cretin. He doesn't have a thought in his head, and he'll be damned if anyone else should either.
Quote from: KoltarLaughing out Loud. (WTF?) Oh my fucking God...!
Anarchy?
Different forms?
Best joke I've seen on the internet.
Okay time to put some BABYON 5 DVDs on...or make some NPcs.
- Ed C.
Actually, Pseudo-P that meant quite the opposite.
One of the things about
BABYLON 5 is that it had an ongoing pro-democracy message throughout the 4th and 5th seasons of the show. Especially during the 5th season.
If you're goiung to quote - you should do the whole comment in context. Anarchy is basically a suicidal form of govervment, actually its a non-government.
- Ed C.
Larry Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy" summed up my feelings on anarchy nicely.
True, total anarchy does not work. People eventually set themselves up as tinpot dictators and fascists over what territory they can protect, and it ceases to be anarchy. The anarchy in the story was an illusion - as the young college students who advocated it came to understand. They were protected - they could express themselves freely, but commit violence upon another, and you are ejected. In that case - it wasn't anarchy. Again, as they soon discovered when the park was plunged into true anarchy.
In reality, all things are about balance and moderation. Citizens can't have total and utter freedom - everything devolves into chaos, which is no way to run a world. So, you give up SOME freedom to live in a "supposedly) peaceful and just society. How MUCH freedom, and what kinds of freedoms, are what the debate is about.
Just like total, free market capitalism - with no laws restricting business in any way, shape or form - is also undesirable. With no recourse or action available against a powerful corporation, nothing is beholden unto them to act in the best interests of anything but their bottom line. So, you place some limitations on business. How much, again, depends on where you live.
Capitalism, communism, anarchy, democracy - the utter extreme of each never works for any one. Just as a benevolent dictator may be the most efficient form of government, with nothing forcing him to ACT benevolent, quite often he will not do so.
Anarchy, like communism, is an interesting theoretical and philisophical discussion, but nothing more than that.
Quote from: HackmastergeneralJust like total, free market capitalism - with no laws restricting business in any way, shape or form - is also undesirable. With no recourse or action available against a powerful corporation, nothing is beholden unto them to act in the best interests of anything but their bottom line. So, you place some limitations on business. How much, again, depends on where you live.
A moment. It could well be that you understand that this ideology you describe is utterly unsupported by economic theory, but I think it is worth it to remove any confusion on this matter.
Economics is not the Cult of the Market; it is the Cult of Efficiency.
Even in the case of perfect competition -- which cannot exist in the real world -- there are cases where government intervention is required to avoid market failure.
Even under impossibly perfect conditions, government regulation is still required to minimize inefficiency.People claiming otherwise are either ignorant, telling self-serving lies, or (in a rare few cases) have plausible alternative theories that nevertheless are not accepted by mainstream economics.
Quote from: hgjsA moment. It could well be that you understand that this ideology you describe is utterly unsupported by economic theory, but I think it is worth it to remove any confusion on this matter.
Economics is not the Cult of the Market; it is the Cult of Efficiency.
Even in the case of perfect competition -- which cannot exist in the real world -- there are cases where government intervention is required to avoid market failure. Even under impossibly perfect conditions, government regulation is still required to minimize inefficiency.
People claiming otherwise are either ignorant, telling self-serving lies, or (in a rare few cases) have plausible alternative theories that nevertheless are not accepted by mainstream economics.
Really? If someone disagrees they are ignorant or lying? Wow, that's a lock on objective truth if I ever heard one.
But I'm not disagreeing as I don't think I'm quite clear on an example of when a perfect competition woudl require government intervention and to what extent. Could you provide some examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
There is less debate amongst economists about the sheer existence of natural monopolies than Wikipedia wants to pretend. However, there is a great deal of debate about what specific industries are "natural monopolies" and which aren't, especially as the rate of technological innovation continues to increase.
I am not fond of government regulation, but I do enjoy seeing corporate and state interests fight tooth and nail with one another. If anything, I wish their conflicts were fatal to themselves and one another more often.
Quote from: Werekoala"Where is your king?"
"We don't HAVE a king! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."
Actually, from what I've read about the 1930's Spainards and anarcho-syndicalism, they didn't have a king, but had a company president. The factories were abandoned by their owners, the workers came in and took over the factories, then managers were chosen to run the factory in day-to-day operations, but the entire company (or cooperative, depending on your favored semantics) voted on decisions which affected the entire factory. This sounds less like anarchy and more like a democracy, actually it sounds most like the Demarchy of Joan D. Vinge's
Heaven Belt stories.
I'm still reading up on the Icelandic Commonwealth.
And just a note, whether you agree or disagree with the term "anarchy", it does make some great adventure ideas when you do the research.
Oh, and Hackmastergeneral, its nice to see another Larry Niven fan on the board. He's one of my favorite authors.
Anarchy and direct democracy are often paired together by anarchist theorists, especially on the left. "Democracy" is so vague a term that it can mean just about anything one wants it to, from the regular majoritarian selection of nearly-unaccountable executives by a group of civil servants not technically beholden to the ostensible "voters" (American presidential elections) to selection from a board of nominated candidates by drawing lots to people marching in the street and smashing the face of anyone who tries to get in their way.
In the case of anarcho-syndicalism, it generally uses a majoritarian form of voting by all workers to nominate provisional coordinators and direct the activity of the workers as a group. This is a kind of democracy, but it's a kind of democracy that is anarchic, rather than one that tends to create and legitimise authorities.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineAnarchy and direct democracy are often paired together by anarchist theorists, especially on the left. "Democracy" is so vague a term that it can mean just about anything one wants it to, from the regular majoritarian selection of nearly-unaccountable executives by a group of civil servants not technically beholden to the ostensible "voters" (American presidential elections) to selection from a board of nominated candidates by drawing lots to people marching in the street and smashing the face of anyone who tries to get in their way.
In the case of anarcho-syndicalism, it generally uses a majoritarian form of voting by all workers to nominate provisional coordinators and direct the activity of the workers as a group. This is a kind of democracy, but it's a kind of democracy that is anarchic, rather than one that tends to create and legitimise authorities.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that anarchy theorists on the left are attaching the word "anarchy" to their theory of government to make that theory look more palatable? That they are using the word "anarchy" to make their ideas sexier (to use an advertising term) to those the theories are directed at?
And what does "majoritarian" mean? I can't find it in the dictionary.
It's in Merriam Webster and the Oxford Shorter. "Majoritarian" is what the heirs to the Anglo-Saxon liberal democratic tradition tend to think of as "democracy" - every qualified person votes and whoever gets the most votes "wins" by having their position adopted, or their candidate take office or whatever the goal was supposed to be. I used the term because I was trying to point out that this is not "ordinary" democracy or how it "normally" works, but rather is a historically-situated artifact.
And I'm not suggesting that left-wing anarchist theorists are using the term "anarchy" to make their ideas more exciting or attention-grabbing.
It's that most people who do not investigate political philosophy and political science tend to have a partial or limited understanding of what many terms, like "anarchism", "democracy" and "freedom" (to name only three), mean, and so think of idiosyncratic and often unnecessarily narrow meanings of those terms.
For example, in this discussion many people have been using the word "Democracy" to mean "Representative democracy of the sort practised in America" or "The system of constitutional monarchy and representative parliamentary democracy of the sort practised in the Commonwealth," or just "Any system where people elect someone to be the boss and make rules for everyone else". These are kinds of democracy, it's true, but no one of them exhausts the term "democracy".
Similarly, it's not that anarchism and democracy are opposed forms of government which compete with one another as to which will be in charge (though some of the previously-mentioned systems cannot co-exist with anarchism). Rather, many of the most popular kinds of anarchism claim to best realise the ideals of an egalitarian and free society, and to do so through ways of political decision making that they also call "democratic". From the standpoint of a political philosopher or historian, they are just as justified in doing so as people who refer to presidential elections as "democratic".
Quote from: James J SkachReally? If someone disagrees they are ignorant or lying? Wow, that's a lock on objective truth if I ever heard one.
But I'm not disagreeing as I don't think I'm quite clear on an example of when a perfect competition woudl require government intervention and to what extent. Could you provide some examples?
Sure:
1. Supplying or regulating access to non-excludable public goods.
2. Imposing Pigovian taxes on negative externalities.
Quote from: hgjsSure:
1. Supplying or regulating access to non-excludable public goods.
2. Imposing Pigovian taxes on negative externalities.
I was going to write a specific response to each of these (it seems the first might have some validity, but is debated, while the second I disagree with required government intervention due to one or two of the underlying principles), but I guess the way you've framed it, that either makes me ignorant or a liar. Congrats!
Quote from: James J SkachI was going to write a specific response to each of these (it seems the first might have some validity, but is debated, while the second I disagree with required government intervention due to one or two of the underlying principles), but I guess the way you've framed it, that either makes me ignorant or a liar. Congrats!
What I clearly said was that claiming that
mainstream economic theory supports your position would make you ignorant or a liar, as with all untrue claims. Simply disagreeing with the mainstream opinion doesn't make you either of those.
Don't misunderstand me, though: your post does make it clear that you are ignorant of this subject. Anyone with even a survey understanding of economics would have already at least encountered both examples. While it is possible that you have something of value to say about government interference in the market, that you are opinionated on a subject you have no knowledge of is not a positive sign.
Quote from: jeff37923Wait a minute, are you suggesting that anarchy theorists on the left are attaching the word "anarchy" to their theory of government to make that theory look more palatable? That they are using the word "anarchy" to make their ideas sexier (to use an advertising term) to those the theories are directed at?
Pseudoephedrine gave you his answer. Here's another.
"Anarchism" as it has generally been used throughout history refers to a specifically leftist political philosophy, a subset of socialism which seeks to promote the common good by minimizing relationships of unequal power between individuals, both political and economic. This usage is older than the more sensationalized connotations of the word and is still commands at least a modicum of respect in Europe and Latin America. As a strain of the socialist movement, it's correct to call it "leftist," even though it has little in common with other "leftist" ideologies such as Marxism, etc.
"Anarchy" (from the Greek meaning "the state of not having a ruler") is used in this context to refer to a system of self-governance that may be highly organized but is built from the bottom up and is not based on an assumption of inherent authority invested in certain elite individuals. This sort of society would naturally be described as "democratic," since the populace as a whole would be called upon to participate equally in the decision-making process.
In short, you can't have anarchy without direct democracy. On the other hand, it's open to question to what extent you can have democracy without anarchy, since (as Pseudo pointed out) the term is also used in common parlance to refer to representative forms of government that would not qualify as anarchic.
Quote from: hgjsA moment. It could well be that you understand that this ideology you describe is utterly unsupported by economic theory, but I think it is worth it to remove any confusion on this matter.
Economics is not the Cult of the Market; it is the Cult of Efficiency.
Even in the case of perfect competition -- which cannot exist in the real world -- there are cases where government intervention is required to avoid market failure. Even under impossibly perfect conditions, government regulation is still required to minimize inefficiency.
People claiming otherwise are either ignorant, telling self-serving lies, or (in a rare few cases) have plausible alternative theories that nevertheless are not accepted by mainstream economics.
Well, that was kind of my point. It can't exist in the real world. Neither can anarchy.
OK, I've done my study of anarchy and my conclusions are best summed up by the old saying, "No matter how you slice it, its still baloney."
Anarchy is a dead end political structure that is a darling of political theorists but has very little practical application outside of theory. Anarchy's own worst enemies are its adherants - who seem to enjoy argueing over the definition of the word as each anarchist, not only on this forum but everywhere else I've looked, has their own individual definition of what anarchy is. This does nothing but create confusion on the subject. There is also a tendency to want to take credit for successes of other non-anarchic political structures, whether it be socialism or democracy or even the time-honored tradition of hippie communes.
Even Noam Chomsky finds fault in anarchy, as seen in
this interview on ZNET (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html)
Quote from: Noam ChomskyNo one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high.
The key problem with anarchy is that it fails to translate from theory to practice, being more of a utopian dream than a realistic option for human governance. Sorry folks, but anarchy just won't work in the real world.
Quote from: hgjsWhat I clearly said was that claiming that mainstream economic theory supports your position would make you ignorant or a liar, as with all untrue claims. Simply disagreeing with the mainstream opinion doesn't make you either of those.
Don't misunderstand me, though: your post does make it clear that you are ignorant of this subject. Anyone with even a survey understanding of economics would have already at least encountered both examples. While it is possible that you have something of value to say about government interference in the market, that you are opinionated on a subject you have no knowledge of is not a positive sign.
Or could have seen 'em but not by them thar high-falutin names y'all used. I mean, I done heard of them there "sin" taxes, just never heard of nobody name "Pigouv." Now I bet he was teased at school, eh?
And in both cases, I'm not convinced on the idea that government intervention is required to minimize inefficiency.
So, you see, the reason I asked for examples as I, personally, not an econ major, but still entitled to an opinion based on the tiny little knowledge/understanding I have of anything economic, don't believe government intervention, in general, minimizes inefficiency. And in the few cases where it
might, you get a usually-devisive political battle over the proper balance and end up losing any benefit that
might have resulted from the intervention.
But that's just from little 'ole me. Don't mind us plebeians, we're just trying to make our way in life and pay our taxes...
Quote from: hgjsWhat I clearly said was that claiming that mainstream economic theory supports your position would make you ignorant or a liar, as with all untrue claims. Simply disagreeing with the mainstream opinion doesn't make you either of those.
Don't misunderstand me, though: your post does make it clear that you are ignorant of this subject. Anyone with even a survey understanding of economics would have already at least encountered both examples. While it is possible that you have something of value to say about government interference in the market, that you are opinionated on a subject you have no knowledge of is not a positive sign.
Ya know, hg, I'm going to quibble with you on this, just because I'm in the mood and I think the whole thing results from a) your superior attitude about discussing economics (you and Pseudo should get along great!), and b) the fact that you were quibbling with HackMaster about an essentially meaningless point (he's saying gov reg is required for essentially social/political reasons, you that it's required for minimization of inefficiency).
What you clearly said was actually:
Quote from: hgjsEven in the case of perfect competition -- which cannot exist in the real world -- there are cases where government intervention is required to avoid market failure. Even under impossibly perfect conditions, government regulation is still required to minimize inefficiency.
People claiming otherwise are either ignorant, telling self-serving lies, or (in a rare few cases) have plausible alternative theories that nevertheless are not accepted by mainstream economics.
Now, I'm not sure why you would be surprised that someone might read that as "people who claim that even under impossibly perfect conditions, government regulation is not required to minimize inefficiency are either ignorant, telling self-serving lies, or (in a rare few cases) have plausible alternative theories that nevertheless are not accepted by mainstream economics."
Because, you know, that's what you actually wrote. At least, that's what starting the sentence "people claiming otherwise," would mean to me; the "otherwise" would refer to the previous sentence, yeah?
So please, be careful what you assume you wrote. You might have meant to say what you claim you clearly said, it might have sounded that way in your head. But it's not what you "clearly said."
Quote from: HackmastergeneralWell, that was kind of my point. It can't exist in the real world. Neither can anarchy.
My point was slightly different. While you said that it doesn't work in practice, I was saying that it doesn't work even in theory. ;)
See...now that I understand... barely... :p
I'm fairly rabidly politically active on matters of the left.
Quote from: jeff37923The key problem with anarchy is that it fails to translate from theory to practice, being more of a utopian dream than a realistic option for human governance. Sorry folks, but anarchy just won't work in the real world.
For centuries, people have said the same thing about democracy. The "it sounds nice but would never work" argument is a tiresome cop-out. Either debate specifics or admit a stalemate, but don't think generalizations such as this stand for a real argument.
You can say that the mind-boggling diversity of "anarchism" is a weakness, but that presupposes that strength and stability necessarily derive from
unity of thought and practice. That's a common assumption (and the idea behind the symbol of the
fasces), but anarchism finds strength in the propensity of individuals to pursue their own creativity and contribute their diversity to the common experience. There's no need for uniformity or orthodoxy beyond the shared goal of building a cooperative society based on free association. To that end anarchism, unlike Marxism, doesn't depend on a set of rigid doctrines that don't change with the times.
And once again you refer to socialism and democracy as "non-anarchic," which reveals how limited your "study" of the subject has been. As a product of the radical labor movement of the 19th century, modern anarchism cannot be considered outside the greater context of socialism. It is a specific subset thereof and its philosophies are built upon the foundation of socialist thought. Core socialist ideas, such as class struggle and the labor theory of value, are fundamental to understanding where anarchists are coming from. As for the anarchism's dependence on participatory democracy, I believe I've already been over that. Anarchy is
by definition democratic, since no individual holds more inherent authority than another. It's what you get when you follow the logic of democracy to its ultimate end.
And before you go around proclaiming how impossible anarchy is, consider that the only anarchist society ever to exist in the modern day (1930s Catalonia) enjoyed a brief but productive life--so much so that it had to be destroyed from without by overwhelming military force on two fronts (both the fascists
and the communists decided they couldn't allow such an example of a free, prosperous society to continue to exist). If it were such an unworkable system, it should have imploded on its own long before, instead of surviving for years before finally caving in to severe external pressures, no?
Quote from: Black FlagFor centuries, people have said the same thing about democracy. The "it sounds nice but would never work" argument is a tiresome cop-out. Either debate specifics or admit a stalemate, but don't think generalizations such as this stand for a real argument.
I was curious about anarchy to see if it was the same dead end that I thought it was years ago. My conclusion after research is that it is. End of interest for me.
Sorry if I'm not converted to your opinion on this, but them's the breaks.
Quote from: Black FlagFor centuries, people have said the same thing about democracy. The "it sounds nice but would never work" argument is a tiresome cop-out. Either debate specifics or admit a stalemate, but don't think generalizations such as this stand for a real argument.
You can say that the mind-boggling diversity of "anarchism" is a weakness, but that presupposes that strength and stability necessarily derive from unity of thought and practice. That's a common assumption (and the idea behind the symbol of the fasces), but anarchism finds strength in the propensity of individuals to pursue their own creativity and contribute their diversity to the common experience. There's no need for uniformity or orthodoxy beyond the shared goal of building a cooperative society based on free association. To that end anarchism, unlike Marxism, doesn't depend on a set of rigid doctrines that don't change with the times.
And once again you refer to socialism and democracy as "non-anarchic," which reveals how limited your "study" of the subject has been. As a product of the radical labor movement of the 19th century, modern anarchism cannot be considered outside the greater context of socialism. It is a specific subset thereof and its philosophies are built upon the foundation of socialist thought. Core socialist ideas, such as class struggle and the labor theory of value, are fundamental to understanding where anarchists are coming from. As for the anarchism's dependence on participatory democracy, I believe I've already been over that. Anarchy is by definition democratic, since no individual holds more inherent authority than another. It's what you get when you follow the logic of democracy to its ultimate end.
And before you go around proclaiming how impossible anarchy is, consider that the only anarchist society ever to exist in the modern day (1930s Catalonia) enjoyed a brief but productive life--so much so that it had to be destroyed from without by overwhelming military force on two fronts (both the fascists and the communists decided they couldn't allow such an example of a free, prosperous society to continue to exist). If it were such an unworkable system, it should have imploded on its own long before, instead of surviving for years before finally caving in to severe external pressures, no?
BF - Hope it's not a big deal, but I've got some questions for you; none of which are meant to be confrontational - just trying to get a handle on some stuff you're saying.
I think you've said, before, that you tend not to be of the socialist bent of anarchy - is that correct? If so, what is is about that "version" that you don't like (as opposed to the "version" that you prefer)?
How would you see a country the size of the US - or maybe even just take a moderately-sized state, like Illinois say, operating under an anarchist system? What would be different than the way the operate now? How would laws be enforced? How would production of goods occur? What would be the status of private property?
The liberty aspects of anarchy are always the appealing part. It's the other aspects and how they would actually operate that seem to bog it down, to me, anyway.
Thanks,
jjs
It's me who's the anarchist-not-socialist. BF is a socialist-anarchist.
Oh, sorry for the confusion. You guys do have, IMHO, similar posting styles.
So would you have a problem answering, Pseudo?
Of course, BF is certainly still able if he's willing, barring, of course, the first question. I mean, he could still provide what he sees as the difference between then and certainly the questions about how he sees operation.
In fact, it would be an interesting thing to see both perspectives...
But you certainly don't have to sepnd time on it if you don't feel the need.
Thanks,
jjs
It's important to first understand that despite saying that I am not a socialist, I am not a capitalist either.
I am suspicious of industrialisation and technocracy. I think socialism tends to give rise to industrialisation and technocracy just as capitalism does.
By "industrialisation" here I mean:
1) The centralisation of economic power
2) The specialisation of labour
3) The adaptation of working conditions to the demands of production, especially the demands of capital ("Work faster - the machine can!")
By "technocracy" here I mean:
1) The domination of managers and other "experts" whose "expertise" is the control of other human beings.
2) The submission of the demands of life to inhuman commands - regulation, calibration, efficiency, effectiveness.
3) The view that everything is a tool, or a resource to be used by tools, including other persons.
I see almost all, though not quite all, kinds of socialism as operating either within these parameters, or else idolising a pre-industrial primitive existence. I find both options unacceptable.
I think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.
There's more to the project than that, of course, but those're the basics.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's important to first understand that despite saying that I am not a socialist, I am not a capitalist either.
I am suspicious of industrialisation and technocracy. I think socialism tends to give rise to industrialisation and technocracy just as capitalism does.
By "industrialisation" here I mean:
1) The centralisation of economic power
2) The specialisation of labour
3) The adaptation of working conditions to the demands of production, especially the demands of capital ("Work faster - the machine can!")
By "technocracy" here I mean:
1) The domination of managers and other "experts" whose "expertise" is the control of other human beings.
2) The submission of the demands of life to inhuman commands - regulation, calibration, efficiency, effectiveness.
3) The view that everything is a tool, or a resource to be used by tools, including other persons.
I see almost all, though not quite all, kinds of socialism as operating either within these parameters, or else idolising a pre-industrial primitive existence. I find both options unacceptable.
I think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.
There's more to the project than that, of course, but those're the basics.
I'll probably have other questions about the specifics, but your last comment was amusing because it was a response to something I was thinking - "how?"
What, in your view, would be the best way to produce things? What changes would be required to bring about that way? In what ways would we hav to change ourselves? How do you foresee that taking place?
And I might be saying this alot, but we've had our disagreements in the past so I'm trying to makre sure - none of it meant in hostility; I'm really just interested in understanding your persepective.
Then I'll rip it apart :haw:
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think the only way to overcome these is to change the means of production so that the coordination of specialised labour by experts is no longer the "best" way to produce things, and to change ourselves so that we do not understand our needs and desires in the same way. Those aren't as impossible to do as they probably sound.
I see that as Marxist, myself.
Quote from: droogI see that as Marxist, myself.
It is from Marx. I'm influenced by Marx, but not a Marxist. I'm more Burkean and Aristotelian than most folks in the socialist tradition.
Skach> I don't think there is a single "best" way to produce things. I think some modes of production are superior to others, according to two criteria:
1) The mode of production leads to freer human association
2) The mode of production is superior to other modes of production in the ordinary way we judge such matters - more efficient, that it allows us to produce new kinds of goods we couldn't before, etc.
I don't like making predictions and saying "This is the way it will go." I think there are many ways possible to achieve both of those goals. It depends upon the situation we find ourselves in, and that we strive to create.
For example, nanotechnology would be tremendously liberating, but it's not a great candidate to stake your hopes on right now. Similarly, local, organic cooperative farming isn't currently more productive than monocultural mass farming, but that will turn around when scarcity drives petroleum prices through the roof.
The "how" is in a similar situation. I think we'll become anarchists through preparing to become anarchists (as opposed to through a violent revolution which catalyses class consciousness). My model here is the gradual evolution of democratic tendencies in England and America (which culminated in, rather than originating in, revolutions).
There are many aspects of this. What I'm talking about is, after all, a total transformation of society. There are intellectual, economic, and political sides, but it's not simply a matter of say, strangling the last priest with the entrails of the last king.
I personally currently work on the philosophical aspects. I spend a lot of time critiquing the idea of innate, subjective and private tastes and of a "human nature" in the strong sense of that word. I also spend a great deal of time on ethics and paedogogy to understand how best to encourage others to be good, and how to be good myself.
I am also currently saving up money to go to law school and study law so that I may assist others against the state (I want to go into international human rights law, specifically, piracy, hijacking, and terrorism).
Finally, I am also writing a novel and some short stories that I hope to eventually get published that, while not directly political, show possible ways of being in the world that are not our own.
If you're looking for some grand project here, you're not going to find it from me. I am suspicious of grand projects that leave the particulars behind in order to push one abstraction or another. I am an anarchist, I work to bring about anarchy one person and one conversation at a time, by pointing out how we are capable of being free and autonomous, how we can realise these capabilities if only we try, and by assisting others to be so.