|
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 10th, 2011 at 8:19PM
"You don't think it can be solved voluntarily" is not a good enough reason to initiate brutal violence. You have to have a bit more evidence. Not that I have any burden of proof, but I'd say that the greatest/only way to fix such massive external problems is through education and awareness -- after which eco-friendly companies will prosper.
I'm not exactly sure if 6B people necessarily have to cause devastation to resources, but even assuming it's true, you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of an actual solution. As I mentioned earlier, who chooses whether fishing-permits or mandatory-birth-control is the better option?
I'm not sure what you meant by retaliation regarding a "just environmentally conscious aggressor". Retaliation is basically self-defense -- it's not an initiation of violence. Of course, there may be confusion whether raising yearly temperatures by 1C over 10 years is an initiation of violence :P.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "might-makes-right". Are you assuming bad people are more numerous and powerful than good people? (This is similar to my earlier question, asking whether most people are responsible/vote-worthy -- if they're not, we're doomed regardless, and democracy isn't a viable solution at all.)
|
|
|