Stupid Question about Anarchism: What if they choose poorly?

[Biscuitician]

I had a conversation with someone who called themselves a 'minarchist' (anarcho capitalist). Bizarre people, but it leads me to ask, what happens if an anarchist community makes bad choices?

So there was the bakery in the US that refused to cater to a gay couple. Their reasoning was nonsense of course, based purely on religious bigotry. But how would an anarchist community address this issue? We aren't going to get rid of such bigotry and divest ourselves of the poisonous influence of things like religion any time soon, so if, somehow, we moved to an anarchist society, how would you adress bad decision making like this?

What about citizens who wanted the right not to vaccinate their kids?

What if they wanted capitalism? Or go back to it? Surely these situations would just destroy the community.

 

[krtek a houby]

I had a conversation with someone who called themselves a 'minarchist' (anarcho capitalist). Bizarre people, but it leads me to ask, what happens if an anarchist community makes bad choices?

So there was the bakery in the US that refused to cater to a gay couple. Their reasoning was nonsense of course, based purely on religious bigotry. But how would an anarchist community address this issue? We aren't going to get rid of such bigotry and divest ourselves of the poisonous influence of things like religion any time soon, so if, somehow, we moved to an anarchist society, how would you adress bad decision making like this?

What about citizens who wanted the right not to vaccinate their kids?

What if they wanted capitalism? Or go back to it? Surely these situations would just destroy the community.

Was it not a bakery in NI/6 counties?

How does the anarchist community, any anarchist community address issues, in general? Not having a go but I would have thought people as individuals react and address things in individual ways. Or do these communities have a collective response?

 

[Biscuitician]

There was a case in NI as well as in the US.

 

[BigTom]

I had a conversation with someone who called themselves a 'minarchist' (anarcho capitalist). Bizarre people, but it leads me to ask, what happens if an anarchist community makes bad choices?

So there was the bakery in the US that refused to cater to a gay couple. Their reasoning was nonsense of course, based purely on religious bigotry. But how would an anarchist community address this issue? We aren't going to get rid of such bigotry and divest ourselves of the poisonous influence of things like religion any time soon, so if, somehow, we moved to an anarchist society, how would you adress bad decision making like this?

What about citizens who wanted the right not to vaccinate their kids?

What if they wanted capitalism? Or go back to it? Surely these situations would just destroy the community.

I had this discussion with an anarcho-capitalist, and argued that this situation would simply not arise - the conditions required for moving from capitalism to socialism/anarchism are such that socialism/anarchism would be the natural/better option at that time. That if there were communities that decided to continue with capitalism, there'd be no-one to stop them but over time they would not do as well as the communities based on socialism and would wither away as individuals realised this setup was not in their best interests and moved to socialist/anarchist communities instead. Those who benefit from the capitalist setup would be too few to have a community on their own.

 

[Biscuitician]

I had this discussion with an anarcho-capitalist, and argued that this situation would simply not arise - the conditions required for moving from capitalism to socialism/anarchism are such that socialism/anarchism would be the natural/better option at that time. That if there were communities that decided to continue with capitalism, there'd be no-one to stop them but over time they would not do as well as the communities based on socialism and would wither away as individuals realised this setup was not in their best interests and moved to socialist/anarchist communities instead. Those who benefit from the capitalist setup would be too few to have a community on their own.

what are those conditions? Are we talking specifically a revolution?

One of the problems i've had in discussion is addressing the 'how' question. This is not an unreasonable question, but at the same time I can't answer it and therefore seem less credible. our system infantilises our thinking such that we accept authority to the point we ask 'how do you get anarchism' or 'how do things work under communism'.

People also want proof.

 

[BigTom]

what are those conditions? Are we talking specifically a revolution?

One of the problems i've had in discussion is addressing the 'how' question. This is not an unreasonable question, but at the same time I can't answer it and therefore seem less credible. our system infantilises our thinking such that we accept authority to the point we ask 'how do you get anarchism' or 'how do things work under communism'.

People also want proof.

Revolution yes but not necessary in the flaming pitchforks and barricades sense. I don't know what the conditions are, except that they would make capitalism no longer workable as an economic system, in the same way the black death made feudalism unworkable. Possibilities for this are climate change collapsing our current society and the next one arising from a perspective of sustainable resource management; technological advances meaning we no longer have scarcity of supply of any goods and/or no longer have enough work for people to do as is all / mostly automated.

It's an entirely a priori argument though - in order to have socialism/anarchism you'd need to have the right conditions for that form of social/economic structure to exist and survive, and those conditions would mean that capitalism was no longer practical - too many people would reject it as a way of living/working for it to be able to happen.

In no way am I attempting to answer questions about how we get there or what it looks like - just that when we are there, we'll be there for reasons that mean people won't want or be able to backslide to capitalism any more than anyone now wants or is able to backslide to feudalism.

 

[camouflage]

I've heard of minarchism, (as in minimal state... more Randist Libertarianism than Anarcho-Capitalism) and wondered if social-minarchism would be a good idea... or minarcho-socialism.

 

[Shechemite]

What would happen regarding those currently percieved as lacking capacity to make their own decisions - under Mental Health/Capacity Acts. Would we still use such concepts?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've heard of minarchism, (as in minimal state... more Randist Libertarianism than Anarcho-Capitalism) and wondered if social-minarchism would be a good idea... or minarcho-socialism.

When minarchism talks about a "minimal state", it means "minimum intervention in what we want to do", which is pretty much antithetical to any socialism that requires to use the state as a basis for achieving policy aims, using stuff like taxation.

 

[two sheds]

What about people born in the wrong area? Won't you need some centralized tax collection to redistribute wealth?

 

[Biscuitician]

What would happen regarding those currently percieved as lacking capacity to make their own decisions - under Mental Health/Capacity Acts. Would we still use such concepts?

Such people would still exist regardless of state or economy. The best we can do is take care of them and offer them as much self determination as is reasonable for their capacity. I don't think that's authoritarian given the circumstances. I don't think you'd need an act for that, and if there was one surely it would be a product of horizontal decision making by people who understand mental health. Theirs is authority that is justified.

 

[camouflage]

When minarchism talks about a "minimal state", it means "minimum intervention in what we want to do", which is pretty much antithetical to any socialism that requires to use the state as a basis for achieving policy aims, using stuff like taxation.

The minimal intervention necessary to ensure everyone is minimally impacted by poverty, or lack of access to education or healthcare etc. Basically whats the cheapest subscription available outside the market we can all pool in for a nice plush socially democratic society of quality. A shoe-string minimal-effort socialist utopia if you will. Minarcho-socialism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

'anarcho-capitalism' is an incoherent idea. Without a robust state overstructure, there cannot be capitalism.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

If a community makes poor choices, they live with those mistakes and hopefully learn from it.
Not sure what other outcomes are available.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

'anarcho-capitalism' is an incoherent idea. Without a robust state overstructure, there cannot be capitalism.

Exactly. Something needs to protect property and make sure the workers don't get too uppity.

 

[two sheds]

If a community makes poor choices, they live with those mistakes and hopefully learn from it.
Not sure what other outcomes are available.

We all need a cushion

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I liked that. Don't understand it mind.

 

[camouflage]

Exactly. Something needs to protect property and make sure the workers don't get too uppity.

What's property in an anarchist society, what's a worker? What's capital in an anarchist society?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The minimal intervention necessary to ensure everyone is minimally impacted by poverty, or lack of access to education or healthcare etc. Basically whats the cheapest subscription available outside the market we can all pool in for a nice plush socially democratic society of quality. A shoe-string minimal-effort socialist utopia if you will. Minarcho-socialism.

The problem is that the core philosophy underlying minarchism isn't amenable to socialism. I think you're using the term as a convenient short-hand for something it doesn't actually mean!

Anarcho-communism already covers all those bases, and by "anarcho-communism", I don't mean a form of state socialism, I mean confederated communities working together to provide for themselves and others (awaits inevitable "but who will clean the toilets?" question from weltweit ).

 

[ViolentPanda]

We all need a cushion

And in this case, by "we" you obviously mean "people with massive arse-grapes".

 

[weltweit]

.. (awaits inevitable "but who will clean the toilets?" question from weltweit ).

I clean my own toilet! I know my place!

 

[two sheds]

And in this case, by "we" you obviously mean "people with massive arse-grapes".

Well no, I can't talk for you obviously

 

[Shechemite]

Such people would still exist regardless of state or economy. The best we can do is take care of them and offer them as much self determination as is reasonable for their capacity. I don't think that's authoritarian given the circumstances. I don't think you'd need an act for that, and if there was one surely it would be a product of horizontal decision making by people who understand mental health. Theirs is authority that is justified.

From what do these people who 'understand mental health' derive their authority - the authority to deprive others of their normal rights without the consent of the wider population, let alone those who are the subject to that authority

Without an Act or somesuch - to what those subject to such authority appeal to if their wise masters end up misusing that authority, or if they are being slapped about, having their stuff nicked, verbally abused etc?

 

[Biscuitician]

From what do these people who 'understand mental health' derive their authority - the authority to deprive others of their normal rights without the consent of the wider population, let alone those who are the subject to that authority

Without an Act or somesuch - to what those subject to such authority appeal to if their wise masters end up misusing that authority, or if they are being slapped about, having their stuff nicked, verbally abused etc?

Well their authority would have to come from the community. Not the state, since the state wouldn't exist. Essentially we the people would recognise that there would be people trained and expert in mental health. These people would also be accountable to the people so that those of limited capcity aren't exploited.

 

[two sheds]

With small communities are you not more likely to get demagogues whipping up hatred against a particular section of society. So pretty well what happens now but with less protection for the minorities?

 

[Biscuitician]

With small communities are you not more likely to get demagogues whipping up hatred against a particular section of society. So pretty well what happens now but with less protection for the minorities?

Isn't that an issue for education?

I don't see any way around giving some a valid authoity in terms of medical care.

If that opens the door to problem attitudes, then we need to inculcate good values on those we educate when they learn the expertise that necessitates their valid authority.

 

[Shechemite]

Or we could give more rights to those subject to the authority of others. Who watches the watchmen?

 

[two sheds]

Isn't that an issue for education?

I don't see any way around giving some a valid authoity in terms of medical care.

If that opens the door to problem attitudes, then we need to inculcate good values on those we educate when they learn the expertise that necessitates their valid authority.

Education would help but I'm not convinced it would prevent people whipping up hatred against minorities.

And we could avoid authority in medical matters by having only complementary medicine

 

[Biscuitician]

Or we could give more rights to those subject to the authority of others. Who watches the watchmen?

The community.

 

[Biscuitician]

Education would help but I'm not convinced it would prevent people whipping up hatred against minorities.

And we could avoid authority in medical matters by having only complementary medicine

well, humans aren't infallible.

but against such behaviour the best check and balance is the rest of society.

the community can make rules to protect the vulnerable.