Anarchy

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Scin

Then again, I believe that people without restrictions are more likely to engage in dangerous deviant behaviour - such as butchering others for food, to use an extreme example, or stealing from them. In an anarchist society, I imagine a lot of people would try and steal from me, and as a result a lot of people would have to die.

Why do people keep assuming that just because people can do something bad, that they will?

If you had the freedom to butcher others for food, would you? I know I certainly wouldn't!

But you (indirectly) raise a good point. I suspect that people raised in a good Anarchist society would avoid most of the problems you describe. But how would we get there from here? This society is full of individuals who are used to government restrictions dominating their lives.

I suspect that this is at least part of the reason that Communism failed. It might conceivably have worked if populated by people of an appropriate culture. But it inherited the people of Tsarist Russia - many of whom were mired in the old 'command and control' culture. That the outcome rapidly became a Tsarist Communism is not surprising.

[Scin]

Originally Posted by Keith

Why do people keep assuming that just because people can do something bad, that they will?

If you had the freedom to butcher others for food, would you? I know I certainly wouldn't!

Not for food, no. But just look around at the bumper stickers people have - "Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them" is one of my favorites. I've traveled all over the USA and all over the world, and I can tell you that while there are plenty of nice people in the world who wouldn't hurt a fly, there is also an unignorable quantity of vicious, insane, or downright psychopathic people who would kill or worse at the drop of a hat.

People who believe that all problems would vanish with the destruction of government make me laugh. PEOPLE are the cause of problems, not government. Government is merely a construct created by people.

[medaille]

I suspect that this is at least part of the reason that Communism failed. It might conceivably have worked if populated by people of an appropriate culture. But it inherited the people of Tsarist Russia - many of whom were mired in the old 'command and control' culture. That the outcome rapidly became a Tsarist Communism is not surprising.

I'm certainly not an expert on communism, but I am of the belief that Communism struggled in russia because it was still a centrally controlled government, ie the decision making power was still in few hands. They same corrupt people controlled them that control us.

Communism or socialism should be paired with a working democracy and at a much reduced scale for it to be effective. In any situation, somehow you need to get to an active and knowledgable citizenry.

[Scin]

Originally Posted by medaille

In any situation, somehow you need to get to an active and knowledgable citizenry.

The "knowledgable" part is presently impossible given the sorry state of global education. I doubt communism will ever be viable. Also - and this is my biggest beef with communism - how do you motivate people to do their best if their effort is not directly tied to their reward?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Scin

I've traveled all over the USA and all over the world, and I can tell you that while there are plenty of nice people in the world who wouldn't hurt a fly, there is also an unignorable quantity of vicious, insane, or downright psychopathic people who would kill or worse at the drop of a hat.

There are some. The interesting question is why? Is this an intrinsic fact of human nature? Or does it result from their environment - the society they live in? I would argue that it's caused (at least in part) by living in a centrally-controlled paternalistic society. It's the natural reaction to a giant-scaled "stop hitting your brother or I'll smack you!".

And yes, perhaps the biggest challenge to a successful Anarchy would be building a mature society out of a bunch of people who've been indoctrinated in "stop hitting your brother or I'll smack you".

Originally Posted by Scin

People who believe that all problems would vanish with the destruction of government make me laugh. PEOPLE are the cause of problems, not government. Government is merely a construct created by people.

An interesting tidbit about human reasoning: we tend to "cross mental polarities" - we compare the positives of the status quo to the negatives of making change.

I don't think for a moment that the world would become a perfect utopia if government were taken out of the picture. But would it be a better world than it is now if people were raised in an environment of personal responsibility? That's a question worth asking.

Certainly PEOPLE are the cause of the problems. But what makes people (particularly the problematic ones) like they are?

Originally Posted by medaille

I'm certainly not an expert on communism, but I am of the belief that Communism struggled in Russia because it was still a centrally controlled government, ie the decision making power was still in few hands. They same corrupt people controlled them that control us.

Yep. My supposition is that Communist Russia became a dictatorial centralised government because that's what the people (especially including those that formed government) were habituated to.

Originally Posted by medaille

Communism or socialism should be paired with a working democracy and at a much reduced scale for it to be effective.

I think it's a mistake to conflate "Communism or Socialism". Socialism is much broader than Communism with many possible variants, and its variants are potentially suitable to a much wider variety of situations. eg. I have heard people denounce universal healthcare as 'socialist' as though that automatically makes it a bad thing.

Originally Posted by medaille

In any situation, somehow you need to get to an active and knowledgable citizenry.

Very true. That's one reason I have greater hope for a successful society without centralised government with modern communications technologies.

Originally Posted by Scin

The "knowledgable" part is presently impossible given the sorry state of global education.

Yes, again "how do we get there from here" is the big stumbling block. Modern education just isn't self-driven by the learner and that's a huge flaw. The vast bulk of us have been trained to be lazy learners who expect to be spoon-fed answers. (This incidentally benefits the government at the expense of the people).

Originally Posted by Scin

I doubt communism will ever be viable. Also - and this is my biggest beef with communism - how do you motivate people to do their best if their effort is not directly tied to their reward?

Good question, but actually, it's flawed - effort is tied to reward. That reward just isn't monetary.

Studies show that once a person earns enough money to meet their basic needs, additional pay tends to lose its motivating power. (Job features such as interesting work and a pleasant working environment become much stronger motivators).

Fortunately, unlike the USSR, we have had the opportunity to witness and study a hard-working society whose rewards aren't monetary - the open source software community. (Note: not a perfect analogy to Communism by a long-shot, but a good study of non-monetary motivation).

Eric S Raymond's Homesteading the Noosphere about the open source gift economy goes into a lot more detail but in a (grossly oversimplistic) nutshell: Once basic needs are met, reputation becomes the coin of the realm.

[Keith]

I was just reading a webcomic and I came across a comment that beautifully expressed part of what I've been trying to say:

Originally Posted by Lord Pumpernickles

I've noticed that in real life tradition is more compelling than law. While it is one thing for the hero to order everyone to be nice to each other, not everyone is going to listen. However, if there is a long tradition of working together, people see no reason to break it off. Its like a habit that you don't notice but affects your life.

[Scin]

I agree that tradition is a powerful motivating factor for those that care about tradition. People like myself who thrive on competition and, more importantly, independence will never fit into a communistic society.

Establishing a communist society is tantamount to a death sentence to the spirit of people like myself. This, above all else, is why I abhor communism.

[Brutha]

And yes, perhaps the biggest challenge to a successful Anarchy would be building a mature society out of a bunch of people who've been indoctrinated in "stop hitting your brother or I'll smack you".

Where there is no power monopol in the hands of the goverment people go and say: "Stop hitting my little brother or I'll smack you". In a society where the power monopol is in the hand of the goverment they let the goverment do that job.
That reduces the amount of violence that citizins commit.

Eric S Raymond's Homesteading the Noosphere about the open source gift economy goes into a lot more detail but in a (grossly oversimplistic) nutshell: Once basic needs are met, reputation becomes the coin of the realm.

The problem is that reputation alone isn't enough to built effective production chains.

In addition to quote a bit: "A free society is a society were it is safe to be unpopular".

I don't think for a moment that the world would become a perfect utopia if government were taken out of the picture. But would it be a better world than it is now if people were raised in an environment of personal responsibility? That's a question worth asking.

Not holding people accountable for their actions doesn't produde a enviroment of personal responsibility.

Fortunately, unlike the USSR, we have had the opportunity to witness and study a hard-working society whose rewards aren't monetary - the open source software community. (Note: not a perfect analogy to Communism by a long-shot, but a good study of non-monetary motivation).

I don't think that their is a greater sense of personal resposibilty amoung people who write open source than under those who write closed code.
In addition it is no society. The amount of people who live from gift money is very limited in the open source community. The majority makes their living with selling support nowadays.

I've noticed that in real life tradition is more compelling than law. While it is one thing for the hero to order everyone to be nice to each other, not everyone is going to listen. However, if there is a long tradition of working together, people see no reason to break it off. Its like a habit that you don't notice but affects your life.

The advantage of written law, is that you know where to go to to erase it. When you have a problem with traditions (which we have), you don't know where to go.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Scin

I agree that tradition is a powerful motivating factor for those that care about tradition. People like myself who thrive on competition and, more importantly, independence will never fit into a communistic society.

Establishing a communist society is tantamount to a death sentence to the spirit of people like myself. This, above all else, is why I abhor communism.

Socialism is more than just communism. There's plenty of room in (some versions of) a socialist society for competition.

And societies can (and do) have both socialist and capitalist elements. IMO, Australia maintained a good balance (capitalist with universal health care, welfare etc.), though it's swung further to the right in recent years.

The ideal is possibly a society where a minimum standard of living (free healthcare - especially preventative, basic living quarters, etc.) is guaranteed for all and competition for jobs exists above that level.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Where there is no power monopoly in the hands of the government people go and say: "Stop hitting my little brother or I'll smack you". In a society where the power monopoly is in the hands of the government they let the goverment do that job. That reduces the amount of violence that citizens commit.

Certainly government punishes citizens if they commit violence (if they're not clever enough to avoid detection or rich enough to afford a good lawyer), but does it significantly prevent violence? It's hard to say without a basis for comparison.

You and I are looking at two different stages in the process. You say "people run amok and need a government to control them". I say "if you resolve what is causing them to run amok in the first place then you don't need a government to control them".

Originally Posted by Brutha

The problem is that reputation alone isn't enough to build effective production chains.

Reputation certainly isn't everything. But I was responding to your statement that there is no motivation to work in Communism - and as implemented in the USSR that seems to have been the case. But money is far from the only possible motivator.

In fact, money is often not even the best motivator. If someone is intrinsically motivated, monetary rewards replace that intrinsic motivation with extrinsic. ie. People who start motivated by the challenge and pride in a job well done end up motivated by making more money. And since the latter can be 'gamed' there's often a significant gap between the two.

The curve doesn't work the same all the way up. People who are desperate and starving work fanatically hard for tiny amounts of money. (I doubt you get the best labour out of these people, but that's an aside). But once people's basic needs are met and they are comfortable, money generally loses its motivational ability. That's when intrinsic motivation starts to really matter.

And on the flipside I suspect many of society's problems can be traced back to that part of the population living in fear that they won't make enough money to survive. Desperate people do shortsighted and harmful things.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In addition to quote a bit: "A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular".

It's not real safe to be unpopular in a democracy. Because sufficiently unpopular things have laws passed against them, and if you do them you end up in jail.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Not holding people accountable for their actions doesn't produce a environment of personal responsibility.

Government 'holding people accountable' doesn't produce an environment of personal responsibility. You can't be personally responsible when your actions are dictated by someone else.

At best, Government 'holding people accountable' produces an environment of compliance. People who disagree with the Government either comply through fear or rebel. The end result is a struggle between the values of the Government and the values of its people.

What produces personal responsibility is a culture and environment where personal responsibility is valued.

A centrally-controlled society does not value personal responsibility - it says "I don't trust you to be responsible. I'm going to decide for you what is right, and punish you if you don't do it". That's not how you treat a responsible adult, that's how you treat a child. Is it a surprise that many people react like children by losing all initiative (sulking) and rebelling to various degrees?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that there is a greater sense of personal responsibility among people who write open source than under those who write closed code.
In addition it is no society. The amount of people who live from gift money is very limited in the open source community. The majority makes their living with selling support nowadays.

I think you're reading more into the example than I intended. I wasn't saying "replace society with the open source model". I was explicitly responding to your claim that no money = no motivation.

The Open Source model is a good example of the way motivation works after basic needs are met. Many Open Source programmers work on commercial projects for a living to meet their basic needs. They then perform additional voluntary work in their own time on Open Source projects that interest them, challenge them, build their reputation and leave a legacy.

Again, the assumption behind pure capitalism is that monetary compensation is automatically the best motivator all the way up, and that's not true.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The advantage of written law, is that you know where to go to to erase it. When you have a problem with traditions (which we have), you don't know where to go.

You work to obtain a consensus by actually talking to people. Voting a representative is a vast improvement over hereditary dictatorship, but it's a still a poor substitute for genuine consensus.

BTW, you've probably noticed that I've been alternately arguing the merits of socialism and anarchy. I think the ideal society is probably a blend of elements and the labels forcing things into rigid, artificial categories aren't helping. I'm tempted to start a whole new thread just called "a better society" where we can discuss how things would ideally work without all the labels...

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Keith

Socialism is more than just communism. There's plenty of room in (some versions of) a socialist society for competition.
[...]
The ideal is possibly a society where a minimum standard of living (free healthcare - especially preventative, basic living quarters, etc.) is guaranteed for all and competition for jobs exists above that level.

We have this in our (german) democracy.
Is it perfect? No, it isn't. But our democracy produces it.

Certainly government punishes citizens if they commit violence (if they're not clever enough to avoid detection or rich enough to afford a good lawyer), but does it significantly prevent violence? It's hard to say without a basis for comparison.

In history we had a lot of countries where there wasn't a state with a power monopol we can use as comparason.

You and I are looking at two different stages in the process. You say "people run amok and need a government to control them". I say "if you resolve what is causing them to run amok in the first place then you don't need a government to control them".

People don't run amok. They make decisions that are advantous for themselves, but aren't for society as a whole.
You need some force that balances that. That may be forcing people who pollute the climate to buy licenses for their CO2 emisions to make decisions that are best for them, the same decisions that are best for society as a whole (reduce CO2 emisions).

Reputation certainly isn't everything. But I was responding to your statement that there is no motivation to work in Communism - and as implemented in the USSR that seems to have been the case. But money is far from the only possible motivator

Worthwhile things aren't produced by single individuals.
They are produced by groups of people who need ressources to get their job done.
Even non-profits need their money donations.
You may object that non-profits could also receive non-money donations, but those people who donate aren't in pocession of the specific thing that the nonprofit needs. It is simpler to transfer money, and let the nonprofit buy the thing on the free market.

It's not real safe to be unpopular in a democracy. Because sufficiently unpopular things have laws passed against them, and if you do them you end up in jail.

I am not talking about things. I am talking about people.
Sure a democracy isn't perfect, but it is good at prevent the mob from hanging someone.

A centrally-controlled society does not value personal responsibility

You overrate the effect of goverment on culture. People are free to value personal responsibility in their friends regardless of the existence of goverment. Culture almost never develop the way some goverment wants it to develop.

You work to obtain a consensus by actually talking to people.
Voting a representative is a vast improvement over hereditary dictatorship, but it's a still a poor substitute for genuine consensus.

You still fail to give reasons why in an society where there is someone who organises (or governs) that talking, is less effective than a society where nobody moderates the talking.

I'm tempted to start a whole new thread just called "a better society" where we can discuss how things would ideally work without all the labels...

The question is not how would a certain system ideally work. It is about who would a system work in practice.

You say, ideally a anarchy would work.
Then I say, anarchy wouldn't work in pratice.
Then you say but if there weren't any problems anarchy would work.
Without problems any system would work.
Systems that deal better with problems have the advantage over those that do worse.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

We have this in our (German) democracy.
Is it perfect? No, it isn't. But our democracy produces it.

I'm a bit confused now. I thought this section was about capitalism vs socialism (which, as I noted, I consider a false dichotomy). Both socialist and capitalist nations (and hybrids) can be democratic (or not).

I'm not too familiar with Germany, but it sounds like you have a good balance.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In history we had a lot of countries where there wasn't a state with a power monopoly we can use as comparison.

I'm personally not familiar with those societies. Info about them would probably provide some useful hints but unfortunately wouldn't be suitable for use as a model for a modern society any more than ancient Athens is a suitable model for modern democracy. After all, ancient Athens makes it 'clear' that democracy isn't scalable to more than a couple of thousand people, tops.

Actually, lets flip the entire question around. Instead of asking "which historical model produces the best society?", lets ask "Given the resources and problems in the modern world what system would result in the best outcome?". Note that it doesn't have to be a system that we already have a name for.

Originally Posted by Brutha

People don't run amok. They make decisions that are advantageous for themselves, but aren't for society as a whole.
You need some force that balances that. That may be forcing people who pollute the climate to buy licenses for their CO2 emisions to make decisions that are best for them, the same decisions that are best for society as a whole (reduce CO2 emissions).

I put that poorly, let me rephrase: you say that "people make self-centred decisions with unfortunate spillover effects that require a government to contain" whereas I say "It's better to resolve (a) what is causing people to make self-centred decisions at the expense of others, and (b) what is causing the decisions to result in unfortunate spillover effects".

BTW, note that the current 'representative’ democracy systemically encourages politicians to make decisions geared at re-election. ie. It encourages decisions that are oriented towards short-term popular outcomes at the expense of responsible and long-term ones.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Worthwhile things aren't produced by single individuals.
They are produced by groups of people who need resources to get their job done.
Even non-profits need their money donations.
You may object that non-profits could also receive non-money donations, but those people who donate aren't in possession of the specific thing that the non-profit needs. It is simpler to transfer money, and let the non-profit buy the thing on the free market.

Like I said: reputation isn't everything. I never advocated doing away with money. I advocate considering it one of many forms of motivation, each of which is best suited to different circumstances.

Monetary reward is an attempt to channel people's self-centred decisions toward societally beneficial ends. And, where it works, it works well. It just doesn't work well as the one and only answer, for the reasons discussed.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I am not talking about things. I am talking about people. Sure a democracy isn't perfect, but it is good at prevent the mob from hanging someone.

Again I would ask: why do the mob want to hang someone just for being unpopular in the first place? That strongly suggests a serious cultural problem. Having police may contain the symptoms of that problem but they don't address the cause. And they introduce a whole raft of new problems (corruption, enforcement of unjust laws, abuse of power, 'us vs them' mentality etc.).

Perhaps the major point of contention is that you believe selfish, destructive behaviour is inherent (and thus requires external containment) whereas I believe it's largely learned (and thus can be prevented in the first place)?

IMO, if people are raised in an environment of scarcity with a scarcity mentality then they will be motivated by selfishness to meet their own basic needs - at the expense of others if necessary. Alternately, if people are raised in an environment of abundance with an abundance mentality then they will feel their basic needs are already satiated. They will still want and pursue things, but they won't feel that fear-driven need that causes so many of society's problems.

Yes, this assumes children raised in a certain way. Yes, as noted earlier, it's a lot harder (though not impossible) with adults who've been raised in an alternate society.

Note that being raised in abundance doesn't necessarily require vast material wealth. A monk can feel abundantly content in spartan surroundings while the richest man in the world can feel he never has enough. IMO, it comes down to (a) consistently meeting basic physical needs (food, shelter) and (b) meeting emotional needs (both directly and through building emotional resilience).

Another way to envision it is a culture of gratitude rather than dissatisfaction.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You overrate the effect of government on culture. People are free to value personal responsibility in their friends regardless of the existence of goverment. Culture almost never develop the way some government wants it to develop.

Certainly Government is unable to deliberately fine-tune a society's culture, but its existence and actions still strongly shape that culture. As you point out, they put constraints on that culture without really understanding what effects those constraints will have. Culture doesn’t just stop at those constraints, it interacts with and rebounds off them.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You still fail to give reasons why in a society where there is someone who organises (or governs) that talking, is less effective than a society where nobody moderates the talking.

Really? I was pretty sure I had.

Obviously a consensus system would result in a more nuanced understanding of an issue than any individual or small group could produce. It could also generate more complex and layered outcomes in response.

Equally obviously, an individual or small group will have its own vested interests that will bias its decisions away from the optimal solution as compared to decision-making by all concerned.

However, even if a small group could generate equally effective decisions, the main problem isn't actually how effective the final decision is. The problem is the “us and them” dynamic that automatically creates. That dynamic creates resentment in the populace, a corresponding ‘need’ for enforcement and a situation where the people feel no connection or loyalty to the nation.

Again, it’s not a binary thing. The beauty of democracy is that the populace have input into the decisions that affect them through their power to elect representatives. The more those representatives actually represent the populace, the less the people feel disconnected from the nation. Conversely, the more distant and disconnected the ‘representatives’ seem from the populace, the less respect the populace has for their decisions (and the greater the resulting social cost).

For the populace to directly represent itself without any need for intermediaries is the end of the spectrum. The closer you get to that ideal, the greater investment the populace has in the nation. The ideal itself may even be coming within our reach technologically.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The question is not how would a certain system ideally work. It is about who would a system work in practice.
You say, ideally a anarchy would work.
Then I say, anarchy wouldn't work in practice.
Then you say but if there weren't any problems anarchy would work.
Without problems any system would work.
Systems that deal better with problems have the advantage over those that do worse.

Obviously discussion must, to some extent, be hypothetical since I don't have a society at my beck and call to experiment with. But I'm certainly not saying that a society without a central government (SWCG) needs an ideal world to work. I'm saying that in practice a centralised government (even a 'representative' one) creates a lot of problems and that I suspect that in practice a SWCG (if set up the right way) would create less problems in the first place.

Systems that deal better with problems only have the advantage over systems that do worse if they have to deal with the same number of problems. If a SWCG is only half as efficient at dealing with problems but results in a society that produces a quarter as many problems then it's the better system.

Since prevention is better than cure I've focussed this discussion on the preventative benefits of a SWCG (ie. elimination of the toxic effects of centralised government). That doesn't mean that SWCGs doesn't have their own effective problem-solving techniques, though.

P.S. Note that I coined an acronym rather than continuing to use the term "Anarchy". The term “Anarchy” narrows the focus more than I intend. eg. Direct Democracy falls within the category of SWCG even though it would not be considered Anarchy.

P.P.S. re: your sig Telekinesis

[agnostic]

Anarchy, while being a nice idea won't work with the current population on earth. If you doubt this, read "The mass psychology of facism" by Wilhelm Reich.
Authority is not forced upon the masses, but asked for due to widespread madness. If you destroy the current government, a new one will emerge. Behead the king and end up with Robespierre.
The problem is deeper. Changing the structure means fiddling with the symptoms.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by agnostic

The problem is deeper. Changing the structure means fiddling with the symptoms.

Can you please explain what you mean by this bit.

[ChaosKiwi]

To me, Anarchy is pouring myself a drink when I'm thirsty and throwing it on the floor.

Badass

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Keith

Can you please explain what you mean by this bit.

I think he's saying that the problem is the human mind, that human's are going to create government no matter what.

[agnostic]

Originally Posted by Keith

Can you please explain what you mean by this bit.

I'm saying that the psychology of the majority of the people in a society will determine which structures this society will live by. You can change the structures, but they will reemerge, because that's what these people expect, need and even if they are factually harmful, want.

Read "The Mass Psychology of Facism".
The Nazis didn't have it burned for no reason.

And if you think there's something to it, read Saharasia after that

Just by destroying the government, you won't achieve freedom. There's a reason we have the society we live in.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by agnostic

I'm saying that the psychology of the majority of the people in a society will determine which structures this society will live by. You can change the structures, but they will reemerge, because that's what these people expect, need and even if they are factually harmful, want.

Read "The Mass Psychology of Facism".
The Nazis didn't have it burned for no reason.

And if you think there's something to it, read Saharasia after that

Just by destroying the government, you won't achieve freedom. There's a reason we have the society we live in.

I agree with you. If we just got rid of the current government, another one would just appear. If we just got rid of the current government, and people were educated in the alternative, then we would be alright. A revolution to anarchy would not work, but a transition, over many many years, might work. Maybe getting Ron Paul as president would be a start.

[Brutha]

I'm personally not familiar with those societies. Info about them would probably provide some useful hints but unfortunately wouldn't be suitable for use as a model for a modern society any more than ancient Athens is a suitable model for modern democracy.

France after the second world war for example.

Actually, lets flip the entire question around. Instead of asking "which historical model produces the best society?", lets ask "Given the resources and problems in the modern world what system would result in the best outcome?". Note that it doesn't have to be a system that we already have a name for.

I am fine with that question.

I put that poorly, let me rephrase: you say that "people make self-centred decisions with unfortunate spillover effects that require a government to contain" whereas I say "It's better to resolve (a) what is causing people to make self-centred decisions at the expense of others, and (b) what is causing the decisions to result in unfortunate spillover effects".

I doesn't have to be on an individual level. Group centric decisions can also lead to problems.
Let take some Christian fundies, who say: "Every homosexual has to be burned to rescue his eternal soul."

BTW, note that the current 'representative’ democracy systemically encourages politicians to make decisions geared at re-election. ie. It encourages decisions that are oriented towards short-term popular outcomes at the expense of responsible and long-term ones.

The more direct the democratic process the lower the amount long-term thinking.
In China politicians can plan for decades because they aren't irritated by elections.

I never advocated doing away with money.

I thought you did, but I is good to hear that we both agree that money has a place in society.

Monetary reward is an attempt to channel people's self-centred decisions toward societally beneficial ends. And, where it works, it works well. It just doesn't work well as the one and only answer, for the reasons discussed.

We agree there too.

Again I would ask: why do the mob want to hang someone just for being unpopular in the first place? That strongly suggests a serious cultural problem.

We live in times of exponetial change. Take someone like Richard Dawkins. We he would walk in the wrong town, after talking to them about evolution, those citizins could get the idea that it is Gods will to hang him.
Different cultures clash against each other and as long as it is kept peaceful everything is fine. There shouldn't be the need for everyone to have the same worldviews.

Perhaps the major point of contention is that you believe selfish, destructive behaviour is inherent (and thus requires external containment) whereas I believe it's largely learned (and thus can be prevented in the first place)?

Modelling a human to be certain kind is a technical problem.

You belief more than that it is learned behavior. You belief that the political system is to blame for such behavior.
In addition single persons can't judge whether certain behavior is in the best interest of everyone. It is better to let a group of people decide what's best for everyone than to let single people who have certain personal interests decide.

IMO, if people are raised in an environment of scarcity with a scarcity mentality then they will be motivated by selfishness to meet their own basic needs - at the expense of others if necessary.

You don't need scarcity mentality for decisions that are based on wrong priorities. You might think that damaging the enviroment is worth the economic gain you produce.
Their will be a certain amount of damage to the enviroment that is okay for substancial economic gain.
In the end that decision shouldn't be made by the guy who profits but by a neutral party.

Note that being raised in abundance doesn't necessarily require vast material wealth. A monk can feel abundantly content in spartan surroundings while the richest man in the world can feel he never has enough. IMO, it comes down to (a) consistently meeting basic physical needs (food, shelter) and (b) meeting emotional needs (both directly and through building emotional resilience).

You can raise a kind as monk regardles the laws of a state. You should also note that most monks let themselves be bound be more religious laws than the average person.
A monk that follow a don't-drink-vow won't call that religious law scarcity thinking.

Obviously a consensus system would result in a more nuanced understanding of an issue than any individual or small group could produce. It could also generate more complex and layered outcomes in response.

Acording to the wikipedia article it is a system that small groups use to decide.

Equally obviously, an individual or small group will have its own vested interests that will bias its decisions away from the optimal solution as compared to decision-making by all concerned.

However, even if a small group could generate equally effective decisions, the main problem isn't actually how effective the final decision is.

A certain level of education is required to do good decisions on any given topic. No single human being has enough time to get that level of education for all topics.
If you let all human beings vote regardles of them knowing something about the issue, you get short term thinking which is ineffecive.

The problem is the “us and them” dynamic that automatically creates. [...] The beauty of democracy is that the populace have input into the decisions that affect them through their power to elect representatives. The more those representatives actually represent the populace, the less the people feel disconnected from the nation. Conversely, the more distant and disconnected the ‘representatives’ seem from the populace, the less respect the populace has for their decisions (and the greater the resulting social cost).

Getting better representives would be a simpler solution (it is still difficult to do), than throwing the whole system away.

For the populace to directly represent itself without any need for intermediaries is the end of the spectrum. The closer you get to that ideal, the greater investment the populace has in the nation. The ideal itself may even be coming within our reach technologically.

We have to balance the value of that investment with the cost of short-term "popular" decisions.
On one end you have a dictatorship, on the other hand you have a system where every decision is made by direct democracy. You have to balance out those benifits.
One way is to have more direct level at the local community level, to get people involed with concrete decision where you don't need much expertise.

Originally Posted by Keith

P.S. Note that I coined an acronym rather than continuing to use the term "Anarchy". The term “Anarchy” narrows the focus more than I intend. eg. Direct Democracy falls within the category of SWCG even though it would not be considered Anarchy.

What do you think about Swiss style democracy?