|
posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2011 at 12:31PM
Obviously if you assume people are generally irresponsible and retarded, an enlightened violent dictatorship is the only solution.
Believe it or not, I assume people are generally good and responsible, and care about the environment.
Moreover, with obvious things like (harm-causing) pollution and over-fishing, violence can be justified as a self-defense, and hopefully as a (unlikely) last resort. Global warming is far trickier since there is no obvious direct harm being caused. Either way, the argument still makes precious little sense -- even if you allow violent centralized solutions, there are so many of them to choose from -- so the argument merely says "violence is acceptable", but not what kind -- ie. it's a functionally meaningless argument. Common sense would suggest that if such violence is to be admitted (it really shouldn't be, as I mentioned earlier), a direct-vote solution would have to be the way to go -- with non-voting being an automatic NO-VOTE! -- certainly not the corrupt mafia-systems we have in place at the moment.
|
posted by dsk on October 5th, 2011 at 5:57PM
>Obviously if you assume people are generally irresponsible and retarded
They aren't ...
"Tragedy of the Commons" happens when each individual agent acts in a logical and rational manner. If you don't use a particular resource, someone else will and you'll be a sucker. If all relevant stakeholders get together and, miraculously, decide to limit their intake, it greatly raises the incentive to cheat, as the cheater will be greatly rewarded by the less than optimal production of his peers.
With something like global warming, it's even worse, as the culpability of an individual is minuscule, and solution is unintuitive.
>even if you allow violent centralized solutions, there are so many of them to choose from
Which is not the argument. My argument was that whatever the solution is, it will be a violent solution. A utopian, everyone-gets-together-and-willingly-sacrifices type of solution, that Anarchy purports, is not feasible, for reasons stated.
>with obvious things like (harm-causing) pollution and over-fishing, violence can be justified as a self-defense
Obvious? Really? What is over-fishing in a world of 6 billion humans? Who gets how much, of a particular fish allocation? Which governing body is in charge of that under Anarachy and where does it get the right to punish a (poor) fisherman (who may have missed out on allocation) for going around the quotas?
It isn't obvious. And it isn't simple.
>a direct-vote solution would have to be the way to go -- with non-voting being an automatic NO-VOTE! --
Under Anarchy, a NO-VOTE is a veto - which makes the entire affair completely pointless. Or are you suggesting that in the event of a YES-VOTE win, the NOs must submit to the will of majority?
>I neglected to mention we've been centrally herded/brutalized for all of human history, and look where that "solution" has gotten us
That may be so, but it's an open question whether or not Anarchy wouldn't have problems like global warming or over-population. Global warming and over-population are prosperity problems. What we do know is that it can't actually deal with them because it cannot, under any circumstance, subjugate the individual to the will of some authority (whether it be a democratic majority, a commune, or authoritarian dictatorship).
|
posted by dennisn on October 5th, 2011 at 8:25PM
You're looking at the scenario in a far too simplistic way. The world isn't binary -- doves and hawks -- it's far more complex. If you take global warming, for example -- I'm not a "sucker" per-se for not polluting -- even though there isn't much stopping me now -- I actually value a healthy planet and ecosystem. Moreover, there are things like "reputation" and such that need to be accounted for. As you might have guessed, life can't really be reduced to a 2x2 game-theory table.
Touche on the obviousness of the over-fishing case. Although, if there is a real threat of extinction, perhaps /then/ something obvious can be said. I was imagining some strange scenario where I own a "plot of sea", and suddenly my Tuna are declining, directly linked to a neighbour's over-fishing-practices. So, yea, it's complex. (And this is ignoring the dubious ethics of painfully killing thinking/living animals for luxury.)
But, again, if we take the over-fishing case, how do you see the customers fitting in? Are they generally retarded and don't know about potential extinction (environmental, etc) problems? If so, why let them vote? If not, what's the worry?
Regarding voting under anarchy, obviously things get tricky when the issue is planetary atmosphere. Things get slightly less tricky with off-sea fishing, where there is a far less direct stake in the matter -- but it's still quite tricky. Things approach triviality in most other common circumstances. You're right though, a NO-VOTE is a veto, and anybody who wishes to violently coerce the dissenter has to have a *damned solid* reason for doing so -- and possibly bear just-retaliation for said initiation of violence.
|
posted by dsk on October 9th, 2011 at 6:45PM
>As you might have guessed, life can't really be reduced to a 2x2 game-theory table.
It may be a case of lack of imagination on my part. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to see how an Anarchist society would tackle problems like overfishing, overpopulation or global warming. I don't think it can. I can't see a way it would without becoming despotic in some way.
>Are they generally retarded and don't know about potential extinction (environmental, etc) problems?
If we're talking about feeding 6 billion+ of people , it doesn't matter. Anything you do will be resource devastating.
>...and possibly bear just-retaliation for said initiation of violence.
By definition there will be retaliation regardless, even if the environmentally conscious 'aggressor' is "just" (e.g. saving the planet from global warming/overpopulation/etc.). What's interesting is when the aggressor loses. Now "might makes right".
|
|
|
|
posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2011 at 12:52PM
Competing violent solutions for global warming include:
1) Population-control: one-child-per-family?
2) Stratospheric sulfur spraying at the poles?
3) Taxing emissions?
4) Capping emissions?
5) Terra-reforming, planting trees?
6) Other kinds of sequestration?
7) Space sun-umbrella?
8) Et cetera ad nauseum.
Every one of these solutions is perfectly viable and sensible. Who decides? (And, as I mentioned earlier, are we still assuming people are irresponsible? In which case, why let them vote? And if they're not, why force them?)
|
|
posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2011 at 12:38PM
(Oh, I neglected to mention we've been centrally herded/brutalized for all of human history, and look where that "solution" has gotten us -- the State is by far the greatest polluter / destroyer of "the commons".)
|
|
