The nature of human nature

[Too Few Lions]

No worries and no railroading as far as I could see. We all  can get carried away with a subject and that's a good thing. I devoured your posts and learned a lot from you for which I thank you.
ciao,
Attila

Same goes Attila, you've made some really interesting posts that I've enjoyed reading on quite a few subjects, and shown a lot of knowledge, wisdom and humour in the process. thanks

[xSilverPhinx]

The Monty Python sketch for this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related



I actually think that it could work for small-ish communities, villages and cooperations.  

[Attila]

The Monty Python sketch for this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJCpNfywrM&feature=related



I actually think that it could work for small-ish communities, villages and cooperations.  

It's always a pleasure to see that skit again. Along with John Cleese and the dead (or late) parrot it is a classic of Pythonesque humour. But seriously folks, if you think the model could work for smallish-communities and so on (I hate all corporations though) do you really think the current system is working for larger communities? I live in Italy and the is the Bunga-bunga model of government really what you cherish? Consider Belgium that has miraculously survived without a government (only a civil service) for over a year. Does anyone seriously believe that David Cameron, Nicky Clegg, Ed Milliband have any talent other than stuffing their pockets and looking after the interests of the RBS, Barclay's, the City? You and I could do a better job by the simple virtue of not being bought and paid for by scum.
Ciao,
Attila

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't think it's enough to just talk about whether human nature can make an anarchist system plausible, there has to be a favorable societal context. With smaller groups such as villages, not only do people generally know eachother, but they might see eachother as extended family. There's modern tribalism there, which can be turned into a good thing - for the tribe. For others outside it, not so sure.

What you said about whether people would make such risk-involving decisions if they really thought the risks are real and will affect them makes perfect sense. I really do doubt they would have so eagerly have chosen to go to war if that meant things got worse for their micro-society.

Smaller groups would also mean it would be easier to hold people accountable (I meant really hold people accountable and remove anonymity, which would make them a bit more careful about preserving their reputation and trustworthiness. For social animals who depend on eachother this seems to be essential...

I guess for larger communities, maybe the smallest units would be familial/tribal groups, going from around 200 to...I really haven't a clue . But with none strong enough to take over or exploit a non cooperative group. Totally independent.  

I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO.

 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO.

But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices?  Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations?  It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved.  Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO.

But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices?  Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations?  It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved.  Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.

After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power. 

I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those.  How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?  

 

[Too Few Lions]

I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO.

But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices?  Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations?  It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved.  Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.

After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power.  

I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those.  How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?  

yeah, I think those kind of anarchists give anarchists a bad name. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. I'd consider myself an anarchist by definition in that i don't like authority and would rather live without it, but I'm not violent in any way shape or form or that kind of anarchist.

I just don't think it would work on a large scale because there are violent, anti-social people out there, and also people who like authority and power, who would probably just try to recreate a system similar to what we have now somewhere down the line, so they got to be in charge. In a small community of likeminded well-adjusted individuals without big egos I reckon it might work just fine.

Oh and Attila, 'extreme anarchist and wine lover' - love it! 

[Attila]

I'm way out of my element, but a game where you would have to organise a stable and self sustaining anarchist society would be a fun one IMO.

But wouldn't anarchists from Rome come in and start hurling incendiary devices?  Isn't that what they did in the recent "Occupy Rome" demonstrations?  It was peaceful, until the anarchists got involved.  Anarchy would work if it weren't for people.

After some superficial reading on the subject, it looks like there are anarchists and there are anarchists. I don't see how 'peaceful' and 'anarchist' can't go along. The agitators could've just as well have been supporters of the political group opposing the one in power.  

I do agree with your last sentence though. It seems like the system needs violence and external control for some people and what's really debatable is what sort of violence and control and if can really be called those.  How would an anarchist system deal with those (using the Occupy Rome example) without contradicting itself? Ostracism from a system that they're dependent on?  

yeah, I think those kind of anarchists give anarchists a bad name. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. I'd consider myself an anarchist by definition in that i don't like authority and would rather live without it, but I'm not violent in any way shape or form or that kind of anarchist.

I just don't think it would work on a large scale because there are violent, anti-social people out there, and also people who like authority and power, who would probably just try to recreate a system similar to what we have now somewhere down the line, so they got to be in charge. In a small community of likeminded well-adjusted individuals without big egos I reckon it might work just fine.

Oh and Attila, 'extreme anarchist and wine lover' - love it!  

Hi xSP and TFL,
I use anarchist referring to a specific political/moral philosophy which can be summed up as: All authority is evil and creates a fucked-up society. As I've said elsewhere, the black bloc demonstrators were not anarchists and I doubt very much they would describe themselves as such. I went into more detail in the "Occupy Wall Street" thread.

I see you both are of the opinion that non-authoritarian systems don't work on a large scale. You are certainly not alone in that view. I just wonder what you mean by "don't work". Are you both of the opinion that our current authoritarian system works? Call me stupid but I don't share that opinion.
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.

[Attila]

That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.

Then why not downsize them? Remember "countries" is their present form are a relatively recent phenomenon. Also the borders of every country have been drawn in human blood. You get truly ridiculous situations such as along the DRC-Angola border which cuts through the homeland of the Bakongo people. We now have the situation where families find themselves on different sides of the border which they have to cross in order to visit each other. And tell me who drew the borders and tell me in what sense does this work? If you prefer a European context (I won't bother with North America; it's too obvious) explain the logic behind the Slovak-Hungarian border which involves an ethnic Hungarian population in Slovakia, not at all to their benefit. And this works? Or explain to me why a Polish population speaking a Eastern Polish dialect is now found in Wroclaw, near the German border? This is just the tip of the iceberg in so far as the problems associated with our current administrative set-ups are concerned.

I have stated repeatedly that this is an empirical issue and I would happily be shown to be wrong. Are you willing to say the same? Or is this a faith-based issue for you both? Things are not always as obvious as they appear and at times the cleverest solutions to complex problems are not at all obvious at first glance. If you don't want to debate this as an open question, then I'll drop it and bother you no further.
Ciao,
Attila

[xSilverPhinx]

That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.

Seconded. I think that after a certain amount of people, with varying interests and personalities, things can get chaotic and unpredictable. Since what's good, evil and what causes harm can be more subjective than people would like to admit,  it really depends on the goal to get people to cooperate. I think anarchy could work perfectly well with familial groups (tribes), or small villages, however. Anyways, wanting to say that people are either inherently good or evil is way to simplistic. That dichotomy doesn't exist, though people, as animals that evolved socially, do prefer cooperation over exploitation. Manifestations of that are biologically hard-wired, such as mirror neurons.

People want to live well and comfortably (common goal, even between criminals and non criminals), but how each does that and what route each person takes depends on the person and circumstance. There are also those who will exploit another if given the chance and unless the system has a way of dealing with those without resorting to top-down rules and authority then it either wouldn't last very long or it isn't anarchy.

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that our authoritarian system works, though ??? I just don't think that an anarchic group can function at the scale of nations, with millions or more.

Edited to add: are you suggesting that political borders be dissolved? In the case of the African continent, tribal groups would divide themselves using the landscape rather than imaginary lines, and interacted with people who shared a close tribal identity and language. Interestingly enough, even big tribal groups such as the Zulu organise themselves quite well.

[Attila]

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that our authoritarian system works, though ??? I just don't think that an anarchic group can function at the scale of nations, with millions or more.

That may well be true, xSP but it might be false. At the moment I don't see any theoretical reasons why a non-hierarchical system couldn't be scaled upwards. But suppose it can't. I've been trying to point out that the nation model is not an inevitable condition of human existence. We've done without it before and I don't see why we can't do without it again. We were born into this system which might create the illusion that no other system is possible. Maybe that's true but do you have any  evidence to support that view?

Edited to add: are you suggesting that political borders be dissolved? In the case of the African continent, tribal groups would divide themselves using the landscape rather than imaginary lines, and interacted with people who shared a close tribal identity and language. Interestingly enough, even big tribal groups such as the Zulu organise themselves quite well.

Absolutely! In some ways, that's the direction that Europe is taking. The Schengen Agreement could be viewed as a step in that direction. Leaving aside the Euro catastrophe (avoidable if our system weren't being run by bankers and their cronies) the general feeling is quite positive about the blurring of national borders within the EU. I'm particularly aware of this since I live in a border town. The difference between going from Italy to Slovenia and from Slovenia to Croatia is quite spectacular. This may be why when I have a similar discussion with people from around here there is general agreement on this view.
Ciao,
Attila

[xSilverPhinx]

That may well be true, xSP but it might be false. At the moment I don't see any theoretical reasons why a non-hierarchical system couldn't be scaled upwards. But suppose it can't. I've been trying to point out that the nation model is not an inevitable condition of human existence. We've done without it before and I don't see why we can't do without it again. We were born into this system which might create the illusion that no other system is possible. Maybe that's true but do you have any  evidence to support that view?

Yeah, looks like nations actually evolved out of the exploitation of other's resources and the eventual establishing of imaginary lines that divided what belonged to one group and not to the other. I didn't say that any other system wouldn't be possible, I just think that groups that cooperate with eachother to maintain those borders and authority will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

I do think that, in a world were resources are not equally divided, and someone is going to have less than others, that conflict is inevitable, and with that, stronger groups will incorporate others and try to violently keep those under control.

I don't have any good evidence other than what happened in human history (which I don't have a very deep understanding of, so correct me if I'm wrong). Small self sustaining familial groups that lived in favourable areas such as along the Nile in Egypt or in Mesopotamia for agriculture had easier access to food. Animal and plant domestication started around then. More food meant being able to have more children and sustain an ever growing population. Bigger and richer groups began to incorporate other territories and groups for resources, strategic localisation etc, because people are greedy and sustaining an ever growing group becomes increasingly more difficult but just as necessary.

(Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel goes into this, there's even a documentary on YouTube in case you're interested and haven't watched it.)

Large territories with many people run into those sorts of problems while smaller groups will be easier to sustain, if they are "blessed" with resources, or the stuff on which it's all structured.

One scenario: if conflicts are inevitable because of the above reasons and are indifferent to whether people choose or not, then wouldn't the democratization of some choices actually be more of a hindrance in some cases due to the lack of expertise (nothing to do with the intelligence of general populations, people just can't be expected to know everything and see the bigger picture if there is one) on how to best deal with a situation?

Maybe I'm just indoctrinated and don't see another logical sequence or conclusion...

Absolutely! In some ways, that's the direction that Europe is taking. The Schengen Agreement could be viewed as a step in that direction. Leaving aside the Euro catastrophe (avoidable if our system weren't being run by bankers and their cronies) the general feeling is quite positive about the blurring of national borders within the EU. I'm particularly aware of this since I live in a border town. The difference between going from Italy to Slovenia and from Slovenia to Croatia is quite spectacular. This may be why when I have a similar discussion with people from around here there is general agreement on this view.
Ciao,
Attila

You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit? 

[Attila]

@xSilverPhinx
I'm off to bed. Will reply tomorrow.
Boa noite.
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

That's a good question Attila. Can't say I think it works all that well, but compared with what most of humanity's had in centuries gone by, it's probably not all that bad either. I just wonder if it's just not easy to run countries with tens of millions of people all with very different personalities and views particularly well.

Then why not downsize them? Remember "countries" is their present form are a relatively recent phenomenon. Also the borders of every country have been drawn in human blood. You get truly ridiculous situations such as along the DRC-Angola border which cuts through the homeland of the Bakongo people. We now have the situation where families find themselves on different sides of the border which they have to cross in order to visit each other. And tell me who drew the borders and tell me in what sense does this work? If you prefer a European context (I won't bother with North America; it's too obvious) explain the logic behind the Slovak-Hungarian border which involves an ethnic Hungarian population in Slovakia, not at all to their benefit. And this works? Or explain to me why a Polish population speaking a Eastern Polish dialect is now found in Wroclaw, near the German border? This is just the tip of the iceberg in so far as the problems associated with our current administrative set-ups are concerned.

I have stated repeatedly that this is an empirical issue and I would happily be shown to be wrong. Are you willing to say the same? Or is this a faith-based issue for you both? Things are not always as obvious as they appear and at times the cleverest solutions to complex problems are not at all obvious at first glance. If you don't want to debate this as an open question, then I'll drop it and bother you no further.
Ciao,
Attila

Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!

I would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.

I think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.

As for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.

But I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.

And as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.