STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 ok, I just checked out the book, some lenghty cirtique (under the 3 star ratings) of his methodology kind of makes me not want to read through the whole book though.But I still don't get your point then, if it all depends on the circumstance, how do you think could things ever reverse back unless someone willingly and knowingly and over time changes the circumstances in a way to make a huge scale open exlpoitation possible again?Because once exploitation is obvious its kind of hard to continue doing it wouldn't you say? I'm not sure Amazon stars is a valid way to judge a scientific book. The question is what do informed experts in the field believe. And I think it's one of the more cited books out there. Anyway I found it very worth reading. And even if you ended up disagreeing with his methodology, that would only mean we need similar studies done with better methodology, not that we should revert to speculation. I think you're confusing me with someone. I never said anything about whether an anarchist society would revert to statism in this thread. One answer I can give you, though, is that firstly, exploitation is not always obvious which is why I keep linking it with deception and secondly, even when people are aware of exploitation, that doesn't mean enough of them are able or willing to fight back to stop it (awareness alone doesn't stop exploitation).
godwin_anarchism Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I frame it slightly differently. Stefan clearly realizes you can't logically change everyone or even most people. That's why he focuses so much on parenting. But my view is that corruption and exploitation exist in humans not just due to poor parenting, but because, in certain circumstances, they provide an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it is when things become most cooperative and peaceful that people may forget about the threat of deception and exploiters have the most incentive to reappear. The solution I've seen offered is we need a cooperative peaceful society that is based firmly on an understanding of the principles required to maintain such cooperative peace and that builds those protections into the system. In my view it would have to be grounded in the type of research in The Evolution of Cooperation. Stefan does point out that concept when he says that the thief wants to be the only thief and have everyone think thieves don't exist, but he uses it to support his anti-state message. When the question is what other ways the thief can exploit if the state isn't there for him to manipulate, he goes into the message that the thief won't exist once the state and bad parenting are eliminated. That's not a very satisfying answer. Since I am very interested in this subject, I will look into The Evolution of Cooperation. Thanks!
TheRobin Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure Amazon stars is a valid way to judge a scientific book. The question is what do informed experts in the field believe. And I think it's one of the more cited books out there. Anyway I found it very worth reading. And even if you ended up disagreeing with his methodology, that would only mean we need similar studies done with better methodology, not that we should revert to speculation. I think you're confusing me with someone. I never said anything about whether an anarchist society would revert to statism in this thread. One answer I can give you, though, is that firstly, exploitation is not always obvious which is why I keep linking it with deception and secondly, even when people are aware of exploitation, that doesn't mean enough of them are able or willing to fight back to stop it (awareness alone doesn't stop exploitation). I didn't say that the rating put me off, I said that the critique of the methodology put me off (which also had good examples why it doesn't really apply much to reality). Might be I still get something out of the book, but I got some books lying around here that I already plan on reading, and considering the description of the method used and the cirtique I don't think I'd get that much out of it. (Also I do't see a point in reading a book which (if the criqtique holds) basically fails to arrive at anything useful for lack of proper method. In the same way I wouldn't read a mathematical proof if it's based on a faulty premise on page 2). (Again this doesn't mean that what I say about the book is necessarily so, but it puts it on the backburner of my "things I want to read in the near future"-list)Then I'm not sure what your point is tbh, I assumed you quoted the circumstance-study as an argument that a peaceful society won't sustain itself somehow (or is always on the verge). Could you maybe summarize what you intended to conclude then from your post in regards to the topic at hand?And to adress your last point: Aside from overtly using force and people not being able to escape or fight back, can you give me an example of people not participating in being exploited when they have the choice? (Or was that what you meant, people basically being basically exploited and captive slaves again?)
godwin_anarchism Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 One answer I can give you, though, is that firstly, exploitation is not always obvious which is why I keep linking it with deception and secondly, even when people are aware of exploitation, that doesn't mean enough of them are able or willing to fight back to stop it (awareness alone doesn't stop exploitation). Very true. I'm sure UPB could be used to manipulate others, if someone is more clever than the other. Logic isn't a strength for many people, and requires discipline and time. If that is the basis of making moral rules for a society, then those people who don't or can't master that skill would be at a disadvantage and easily deceived. A society devoted to sitting around and thinking about this stuff would be extremely unproductive.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure Amazon stars is a valid way to judge a scientific book. The question is what do informed experts in the field believe. And I think it's one of the more cited books out there. Anyway I found it very worth reading. And even if you ended up disagreeing with his methodology, that would only mean we need similar studies done with better methodology, not that we should revert to speculation. I think you're confusing me with someone. I never said anything about whether an anarchist society would revert to statism in this thread. One answer I can give you, though, is that firstly, exploitation is not always obvious which is why I keep linking it with deception and secondly, even when people are aware of exploitation, that doesn't mean enough of them are able or willing to fight back to stop it (awareness alone doesn't stop exploitation). I didn't say that the rating put me off, I said that the critique of the methodology put me off (which also had good examples why it doesn't really apply much to reality). Might be I still get something out of the book, but I got some books lying around here that I already plan on reading, and considering the description of the method used and the cirtique I don't think I'd get that much out of it. (Also I do't see a point in reading a book which (if the criqtique holds) basically fails to arrive at anything useful for lack of proper method. In the same way I wouldn't read a mathematical proof if it's based on a faulty premise on page 2). (Again this doesn't mean that what I say about the book is necessarily so, but it puts it on the backburner of my "things I want to read in the near future"-list)Then I'm not sure what your point is tbh, I assumed you quoted the circumstance-study as an argument that a peaceful society won't sustain itself somehow (or is always on the verge). Could you maybe summarize what you intended to conclude then from your post in regards to the topic at hand?And to adress your last point: Aside from overtly using force and people not being able to escape or fight back, can you give me an example of people not participating in being exploited when they have the choice? (Or was that what you meant, people basically being basically exploited and captive slaves again?) Is the critique of the methodology by someone qualified to judge the methodology? My point was that we shouldn't just speculate on what we think will happen when cooperators and exploiters interact. We should look to research and evidence. Whatever you think of Axelrod's work, his methodology is a lot closer to valid than "just think about it and post in a forum." The least you can say is he actually played out the scenarios to see what happens, as opposed to just taking educated guesses as we do here. What his work shows - and I am pretty confident is accurate and would be shown by further research, as well (though I want it based on research) - is that there are game theory types of dynamics going on that determine whether cooperation or exploitation flourishes in a particular situation. There is no simple rule like "Corruption never pays" as you were saying. That's simply mathematically not true. An example of people not fighting back might be a group of pacifists whose beliefs lead them to non-violently protest or even attempt to accomodate a corrupt group that is harming them, allowing the corrupt group to simply continue it behavior.
TheRobin Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 You know, if you really think that all that's happening here is "thinking about it and post it in a forum" then you should probably not waste any time here.
Bradford26 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Usually when arguing against Minarchists, or 'limited government' Libertarians on the sustainability of their preferred states, Stef and other Anarchists/Anti-Statists will sometimes say that "There has been no government in history that has stayed limited." Well, to be fair, there has been no Anarchic society in history that has stayed Anarchic. To critique Minarchism in this way would be to assert that if an Anarchist/Voluntaryist society were to ever be, it would not eventually become a state. Sometimes conversations tend to travel nice big circles until the participants ask, "What was the question again?" I could be totally wrong, and please be patient with me, but I feel like this conversation may be nearing that point. In any case, I will take this opportunity to start from the beginning. ;-) Are you an employee or a student? If yes, is violence used at your company or school to maintain customers, employees or students? How and when do you foresee your company or school turning into a state? What are some things that you or your company or school can do to prevent it from becoming a state? Thanks for reading, I'm looking forward to your reply.
Recommended Posts