What is Anarchism?

[Revoltingest]

In my vision of the future, supply and demand will be governed primarily as a computer-assisted matchmaking problem. Money will be eliminated which will reduce crime and corruption to near zero. There would be no reason for citizens to opt for "free economic association" because, as cooperative citizens, their needs will be met equally and sufficiently by their society.

You're not eliminating money.
Just having a computer make the transactions.
BTW, not everyone will be content merely having
their basic needs satisfied by what the computer allows.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not voluntary? What does that mean? Seems to me a matter of trying to reach the right decision.

People are diverse. So "the people" simply means
a majority (or powerful minority) deciding for all,
including people who want something different.

If there are two sides to an issue of morality, the collective conscience (intuitive moral sense) of the majority should rule. If the issue is one of reason, the facts (evidence) that convinces the majority should rule.

What's moral to one group might not warrant imposition
upon the other. Consider theocracies...is it proper for
one religion to force all of its beliefs & practices on others?

 

[joe1776]

You're not eliminating money.
Just having a computer make the transactions.
BTW, not everyone will be content merely having
their basic needs satisfied by what the computer allows.

Doesn't a computer transaction eliminate the need to use money to facilitate a trade?

You're right, there would be citizens unhappy that they can't prove themselves superior to others by accumulating more stuff. They'd have to learn to live with disappointment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesn't a computer transaction eliminate the need to use money to facilitate a trade?

The program would track values, ensuring fair
trades (I assume). This mimics the function of
people bargaining using money.

You're right, there would be citizens unhappy that they can't prove themselves superior to others by accumulating more stuff. They'd have to learn to live with disappointment.

So you believe that wanting more is solely to
feel superior? And you, in your infinite wisdom
would make it a crime to get more than what
the government (or computer) decides for them?
Please don't try your system out here in Ameristan.
Visit that horror upon some other place first.
If successful, then we'll talk.

 

[joe1776]

People are diverse. So "the people" simply means a majority (or powerful minority) deciding for all,
including people who want something different.

The majority deciding question A are not the same people in the majority deciding question B.For the individual citizen, it's a case of win some and lose some. That's fair.

What's moral to one group might not warrant imposition
upon the other. Consider theocracies...is it proper for
one religion to force all of its beliefs & practices on others?

When its unbiased, the intuitive moral sense that we refer to as 'conscience" doesn't send mixed messages. For example, over three centuries, it moved the world from one which accepted slavery to one that doesn't. It did so despite the fact that the sacred texts of the most popular Western religions offered no support.

The problem you describe is temporary -- when an entire society can be morally misled. Over time, we humans are making moral progress because of that intuitive sense that we call "conscience."

 

[Revoltingest]

@joe1776....
Gotta fix that quote function.

 

[joe1776]

The program would track values, ensuring fair
trades (I assume). This mimics the function of
people bargaining using money.

But it eliminates the need for money right?

So you believe that wanting more is solely to
feel superior?

Its my explanation for Greed. What's yours?

 

[Heyo]

The kind of stateless structure in that article is a construct
that doesn't happen in reality. Government & countries are
emergent properties of humans.

Nope. Government & countries are an emergent property of permanent settlements. There is no such thing in nomadic tribes.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm of the opinion that an unrestrained free market capitalist society will always become some form of autocracy. People are too greedy to voluntarily prevent severe wealth disparity which will inevitably create a ruling (resource control and management) class.

 

[Heyo]

Its my explanation for Greed. What's yours?

A cancerous form of planning ahead.
Humans are able to survive in boreal climates because they have stockpiling - but they don't have an upper limit for stockpiling. There is a natural limit when you have to physically stock your grain and most food is perishable, even when preserved. With the invention of money even that limit fell. Now we are stuck with our tendency to hoard and we have no psychological limit that tells us when to stop.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it eliminates the need for money right?

It's just money called by a different name,
but with the disadvantage of reduced freedom.

Its my explanation for Greed. What's yours?

To want more for whatever personal reason one has.
You dislike greed. But I prefer that such puritanism
that oppresses others is wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. Government & countries are an emergent property of permanent settlements. There is no such thing in nomadic tribes.

I spoke of larger populations...the kind that humans
have now, not nomads or other such small groups
from stone age societies.
You'll notice that permanent settlements are the norm.
And they're big...really big. This won't go away.

 

[an anarchist]

In my vision of the future, supply and demand will be governed primarily as a computer-assisted matchmaking problem.

I don’t think supply and demand could ever be predicted perfectly. Individuals preferences and subjective value they assign things change spontaneously at any given moment. It is impossible for central planners to be able to predict supply and demand. There is no way to account for it. Adding a computer to the mix wouldn’t solve the issue.

 

[joe1776]

It's just money called by a different name,
but with the disadvantage of reduced freedom.

When you replace the horses pulling the wagon with mules, the mules don't become horses. When the money used to facilitate an economic transaction is replaced by electrons, the electrons don't become money.

Freedom? Without money the criminals in our societies won't be free to conduct business as usual. What worthy purpose do you see being curtailed?

To want more for whatever personal reason one has.
You dislike greed. But I prefer that such puritanism
that oppresses others is wrong.

You have that opinion because you were probably born white, male, and with an above average IQ. Had you been born black, female and with an average IQ, you would likely sense the economic unfairness of our societies.

A society is a cooperative endeavor. How can we expect all citizens to fully cooperate when we reward them based on being lucky at birth?

 

[Revoltingest]

When you replace the horses pulling the wagon with mules, the mules don't become horses.

They're still beasts of burden.
Your analogy would've worked if I'd claimed
something like dollars are rubles. Instead,
I recognize that you're just changing the
name, & making it less useful.

When the money used to facilitate an economic transaction is replaced by

My electrons are already measured in dollars
every time I use ebay, PayPal, Amazon, etc.

electrons, the electrons don't become money.

You're living in the 19th century.

Freedom? Without money the criminals in our societies won't be free to conduct business as usual. What worthy purpose do you see being curtailed?

Your system would deny me the ability to bargain
with a buyer or seller. It would also limit me to
only that which your computer said I need to survive.

You have that opinion because you were probably born white, male, and with an above average IQ.

Flattery won't win any arguments.

Had you been born black, female and with an average IQ, you would likely sense the economic unfairness of our societies.

You believe that blacks & women don't want
economic freedom, & perhaps to have more
than your computer would limit them to?

A society is a cooperative endeavor.

You're proposing a very coercive endeavor, ie,
one all about preventing us from doing things
we want to do.

How can we expect all citizens to fully cooperate when we reward them based on being lucky at birth?

To eliminate luck by knocking all people down
to subsistence living seems unlucky indeed.

 

[joe1776]

I don’t think supply and demand could ever be predicted perfectly. Individuals preferences and subjective value they assign things change spontaneously at any given moment. It is impossible for central planners to be able to predict supply and demand. There is no way to account for it. Adding a computer to the mix wouldn’t solve the issue.

Well, you are trying to imagine the computer dealing with the economy as it exists today. I foresee a future where the citizen's options are more limited but they would all have training and jobs that suited their abilities and be provided shelter, food, Internet access, the basics.

 

[Heyo]

I spoke of larger populations...the kind that humans
have now, not nomads or other such small groups
from stone age societies.

You said it is an emergent property of being human. That insinuates dehumanizing nomadic humans. That's what I wanted corrected.

 

[an anarchist]

I foresee a future where the citizen's options are more limited

And you can count me out! In this utopia of yours, I imagine agorism (counter economies, black markets) would be very popular. Circumventing the State and starving it of resources by not participating in it entirely. I definitely would partake in this type of action. Just an unintended consequence to think about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Heyo]

I don’t think supply and demand could ever be predicted perfectly. Individuals preferences and subjective value they assign things change spontaneously at any given moment. It is impossible for central planners to be able to predict supply and demand. There is no way to account for it. Adding a computer to the mix wouldn’t solve the issue.

It's not just adding a computer, it's also automatization and on-demand production with, e.g., 3D printing. Post-scarcity economy - Wikipedia is the keyword. We were on the way to it but there are two main obstacles: greed and climate change.

 

[joe1776]

They're still beasts of burden.
.

OK, Amigo. You win.

My electrons are already measured in dollars
every time I use ebay,

So, your argument then is that we already have uses for the computer thus we don't need any more?

Your system would deny me the ability to bargain
with a buyer or seller. It would also limit me to
only that which your computer said I need to survive.

You'd be asked to give up bargaining not sex. And the benefits would more than compensate most people.

You believe that blacks & women don't want
economic freedom, & perhaps to have more
than your computer would limit them to?

You're worried that people would have to give up their freedom of dealing with the crappy, unfair world we now have?

You're proposing a very coercive endeavor, ie,
one all about preventing us from doing things
we want to do.

You are jumping to convulsions. With all citizens trained in work they're good at, the eventual product would be a much fairer and better world.

To eliminate luck by knocking all people down
to subsistence living seems unlucky indeed.

If you can state a reason to support your claim that everyone would be living at a subsistence level, I'll consider it. I have everyone trained and working at something they're good at. I don't see that a poor result is possible.