# Anarchy

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [February 4, 1999, 10:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080 "1999-02-04T22:29:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/61 "2000-04-13T14:40:23Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0807 MDT)]

Mike Acree (2000.04.12.1213 PDT)--

> > > You're consistently assuming that overwhelming physical force is the only  
> > > thing that could keep people from acting on their desires, but there's  
> > > another major one: It's typically very expensive.

> > Not if you don't pay up, or if you lie about how much it will cost, etc..
> 
> My example was preventing people from using marijuana. That will take many  
> thousands of people, as does the current War on Drugs, who will be placing  
> their lives at risk. How are you going to get them to do it for free? The  
> job will be ongoing, so they won't be willing to wait for payment until the  
> task is done.

Are we talking about the same thing? You're asking what can keep people  
from acting on their desires. I thought you were saying that the expense of  
acting on their desires was another factor (beside the fear of overwhelming  
force) that can keep them from doing it. But people commonly act on their  
desires in ways that incur great expenses, and then simply do not pay up.  
The only way we have for \_making\_ them pay up is our ability to apply, as  
necessary, overwhelming physical force. When you're asking what the  
ultimate determinant is, you have to say, "OK, the expense can be a  
discouraging factor. But what if the person gets around that by simply not  
paying? The expense then ceases to be a factor." This leads to asking how  
the expense can be made into an \_unavoidable\_ deterrent, and the answer is  
that payment is legally \_enforced\_. So we're back to physical force.

> > It's too easy to take for granted the underlying agreements that make  
> > social life possible.
> 
> Maybe so, but \_I\_ wasn't taking them for granted.

As I understood the discussion, you took it for granted that if satisfying  
a desire entailed great expenses, the person would necessarily \_pay\_ them.  
I was pointing out that this assumption is not warranted if the person  
really wants to satisfy the desire; the expense can be blown off, paid with  
a bad check, fled from, and so forth. If there were no penalties for  
evading the payment, then the expense would no longer be a deterrent. So in  
the final analysis we're back to force again.

> > Who is this "government," anyhow? Doesn't it consist, at the top, of people  
> > you and I elected to office?

> Those who are rich enough to afford private schools for their children, if  
> they are dissatisfied in any way with a given school, can simply put their  
> children in a different school. Those who are too poor to afford private  
> schools, if they are dissatisfied with the public school, have to lobby the  
> school board for change. It is possible for school boards to change, but  
> you will be exceptionally lucky if you succeed before your children have  
> graduated.

Sure, some problems with the system can't be solved quickly enough to  
prevent further abuses. So what do you do, shoot the school board? If your  
concern is with improving the system (even if you can't immediately  
benefit), you will vote for a better school board and try to get others to  
do the same. Then at least perhaps your grandchildren will have it better.  
Note that the rich person who simply shifts a child to a different school  
does nothing for the system as a whole, or future generations.

> If all the people in Colorado were required to buy the same kind of car, to  
> be determined by vote, how much effort would you put into campaigning for  
> your preference? If you were consistently in the minority, would you even  
> bother voting? Why would you ever favor such a system over one where you  
> could simply choose what you wanted?

If I didn't like that requirement, I would be working against it. Why waste  
your time fighting the effects when you can be working on the cause?

Actually, we \_are\_ required to buy the same kind of car: we can only buy  
cars with headlights, brakes, and emission controls if we want to drive  
them on public roads. I very much favor that idea. I would like to keep  
cars off the road that do not meet those requirements. And I would like to  
see it done in some way other than by shooting the drivers.

> > Complaining about what "the government" does as if it were some alien race  
> > is simply ineffectual.
> 
> Unlike complaining about businessmen as though they were some alien race?

See previous post.

> I have always been concerned to try to establish a slope in the right  
> direction, by which I would mean less arbitrary, or coercive, interference  
> in our lives. I'm not sure why it would ever have looked otherwise, except  
> that our discussion has been focused more on the endpoint, where we clearly  
> diverged.

Yes, and I am coming to the conclusion that these "endpoint" discussions  
are of little use. The real questions are about what to do NOW.

> You, if I understand, want also to minimize such arbitrary  
> control of others, but with a big exception made for businessmen.

You don't seem to believe that businessmen try to exert any control over  
other people, such as their employees, or people whose air and water they  
pollute, or whose money they take for bad products, or politicians, and so  
on. Your position seems to be that it's all the fault of politicians, who  
put temptation in the way of perfectly innocent businessmen by offering to  
take bribes from them.

'Tis so, 'taint so. Enough.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/62 "2000-04-13T23:25:31Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (2000.04.13.1623 PDT)]

Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0807 MDT)--

> > > > You're consistently assuming that overwhelming physical force is the

only

> > > > thing that could keep people from acting on their desires, but there's  
> > > > another major one: It's typically very expensive.
> 
> \<\>Not if you don't pay up, or if you lie about how much it will cost, etc..
> 
> > My example was preventing people from using marijuana. That will take

many

> > thousands of people, as does the current War on Drugs, who will be placing  
> > their lives at risk. How are you going to get them to do it for free?

The

> > job will be ongoing, so they won't be willing to wait for payment until

the

> > task is done.
> 
> Are we talking about the same thing? You're asking what can keep people  
> from acting on their desires. I thought you were saying that the expense of  
> acting on their desires was another factor (beside the fear of overwhelming  
> force) that can keep them from doing it. But people commonly act on their  
> desires in ways that incur great expenses, and then simply do not pay up.  
> The only way we have for \_making\_ them pay up is our ability to apply, as  
> necessary, overwhelming physical force. When you're asking what the  
> ultimate determinant is, you have to say, "OK, the expense can be a  
> discouraging factor. But what if the person gets around that by simply not  
> paying? The expense then ceases to be a factor." This leads to asking how  
> the expense can be made into an \_unavoidable\_ deterrent, and the answer is  
> that payment is legally \_enforced\_. So we're back to physical force.

I wonder, too, if we're talking about the same thing. My point seems too  
simple for us to keep missing each other like this. If you want to wage  
your own private War on Drugs--or, more likely, band together with others  
who also want to--you may, like any other employer, be able to get away with  
not paying your army of drug warriors for the first month, or maybe two.  
After that, they're going to be looking for other jobs, and your task has  
barely started. I stand by my original point: However much people might  
\_desire\_ to control others on a scale like this, they won't have the  
resources. It's only because the government subsidizes people's efforts to  
control others, by distributing the cost over those who don't support the  
effort, that we get this kind of massive social coercion.

> Note that the rich person who simply shifts a child to a different school  
> does nothing for the system as a whole, or future generations.

You imply that the person who changes the school board benefits the system  
as a whole, and future generations. That depends. If I persuade the school  
board to teach creationism or sex education, some consumers will be pleased,  
others will not. That's the problem with any system where one decision has  
to be made for everybody. No parent should have to put up with their  
children being taught ideas they disapprove of.

> > If all the people in Colorado were required to buy the same kind of car,

to

> > be determined by vote, how much effort would you put into campaigning for  
> > your preference? If you were consistently in the minority, would you even  
> > bother voting? Why would you ever favor such a system over one where you  
> > could simply choose what you wanted?
> 
> If I didn't like that requirement, I would be working against it. Why waste  
> your time fighting the effects when you can be working on the cause?

That's what I see myself doing, however ineffectually.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2000, 11:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/63 "2000-04-21T23:20:33Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (2000.0421.1620 PDT)]

Martin Taylor (2000.0413)--

I'm delighted to see someone bringing together Powers and Kauffman, two of  
my favorite thinkers. I found both your post to the Net and the speech on  
the Web unsatisfying in the same way, however. In both documents you show  
extreme patience with the axioms, then catapult over about 10 steps of logic  
to a conclusion which isn't even framed in the same terms. Thus I find  
nothing to take issue with in your paper on autonomous systems, but the  
conclusion--that "cooperation will win out over competition"--seems  
completely tacked on, as these terms haven't even been defined. I won't try  
to argue that cooperation \_won't\_ win out over competition, but I'm not  
convinced of your conclusion, either. In the first place, it is oddly  
self-referential: "Win out over" sounds awfully competitive to me. But  
more seriously, as I look around even the nonhuman biological realm, I think  
I see as much competition as cooperation; and I don't see any indication  
that the former is yielding to the latter in evolution. If you want to  
clarify what you meant, I'll be interested.

Similarly I find nothing to take issue with in your post until your  
conclusion that anarchy (undefined) is not a viable system. It can be  
inferred that what you mean by anarchy is a nonsystem--a society without any  
formal institutions or organization regarding contracts and the like. In  
that sense your conclusion follows, but too easily: That's not a conception  
anyone to my knowledge has ever defended, at least on the Net. The question  
is not whether \_any\_ such institutions are necessary, or will evolve, but  
whether such an institution must necessarily be a monopoly. I don't see  
that your post addresses this question at all.

A very interesting and important phenomenon throughout the anarchy thread  
has been the persistence--the robustness--of false dichotomies. Either a  
society is organized with a government monopoly, or it has no organization  
at all. Either a given social function is performed by a government  
monopoly--or it isn't performed at all. I'm speaking here, of course, not  
just of your contributions, but of Bill's, and in earlier threads, of  
Rick's.

\_Government\_ really seems to function here like the concept of God. For  
many believers, if God didn't exist and intervene in the world to keep it  
running right, then existence, left to its own devices, would run wild. If  
God didn't exist, there would be no reason to be moral, to be nice to each  
other. The possibility of secular explanations is completely ruled out, in  
the same way that \_voluntary\_ solutions are completely ruled out by the  
government-or-nothing view. Is the problem a lack of imagination, or what?

Best,  
Mike

P.S.: I'm following your hit-and-run example--I'm leaving town right now  
and will be off-line for a week.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2000, 7:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/64 "2000-04-22T19:41:15Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.0422.1320 EDT)]

Mike Acree (2000.0421.1620 PDT)]

> as I look around even the nonhuman biological realm, I think  
> I see as much competition as cooperation; and I don't see any indication  
> that the former is yielding to the latter in evolution.

As I recall, Darwin claimed that cooperation was at least as important as  
competition for survival. Kropotkin in \_Mutual Aid\_ adduced evidence that  
it was more so. I am not familiar with more recent research, but the image  
of "nature red in tooth and claw" (the line is from Tennyson) has more to  
do with the politics of social darwinism than with science.

There is a lovely documentary of a kangaroo herd, or "mob" as it is called,  
that follows two mothers with their respective joeys, showing how one has  
learned and teaches cooperative relations with others, and the other has  
not and does not. The first has brought a series of offspring to adulthood,  
and her mother has many descendants throughout the mob; the second has no  
living offspring or close relatives, she is nearing the end of her fertile  
years, and toward the end of the year or so documented in the video her  
joey gets lost and is killed by predators.  
"Kangaroos: Faces in the mob"

> **[Amazon.com: Kangaroos:Faces in the Mob \[VHS\] : Jan Aldenhoven, Glen Carruthers:...](https://www.amazon.com/Kangaroos-Faces-Mob-Jan-Aldenhoven/dp/1569381712)**
>
> From the Back Cover Kangaroos is an engaging true story of life within one mob of wild Eastern Grey Kangaroos. For two years, award-winning Australian filmmakers Dr. Jan Aldenhoven and Glen Carruthers lived with this mob. Hear their...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 04:20 PM 04/21/2000 -0700, Michael Acree UCSF wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 2000, 8:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/65 "2000-04-28T20:54:22Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (2000.0428.1347 PDT)

Bruce Nevin (2000.0422.1320 EDT)--

> > as I look around even the nonhuman biological realm, I think  
> > I see as much competition as cooperation; and I don't see any indication  
> > that the former is yielding to the latter in evolution.
> 
> As I recall, Darwin claimed that cooperation was at least as important as  
> competition for survival.

It sounds as though you took my statement as a defense of competition. I  
was merely questioning Martin's conclusion about cooperation "winning out  
over" competition. I've been described by friends as the most  
noncompetitive male they ever knew; I'm quite happy to see cooperation  
wherever I can. I think, in fact, that I see the market economy as much  
more cooperative than most of my interlocutors on the Net do. I don't  
dislike Martin's conclusion; I just didn't see much support for it.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2000, 10:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/66 "2000-04-29T22:45:22Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.0429.1845 EDT)]

Mike Acree (2000.0428.1347 PDT)--

> Bruce Nevin (2000.0422.1320 EDT)--
> 
> > > as I look around even the nonhuman biological realm, I think  
> > > I see as much competition as cooperation; and I don't see any indication  
> > > that the former is yielding to the latter in evolution.
> > 
> > As I recall, Darwin claimed that cooperation was at least as important as  
> > competition for survival.
> 
> It sounds as though you took my statement as a defense of competition. I  
> was merely questioning Martin's conclusion about cooperation "winning out  
> over" competition. [...] I don't  
> dislike Martin's conclusion; I just didn't see much support for it.

Please construe the reference to Darwin and Kropotkin as support for  
Martin's statement and for your preferences (and mine).

Consider the evolutionary path from pathogen to parasite to symbiote to (in  
the case of e.g. mitochodria, intestinal flora, etc.) integral part of the  
organism. Indeed, consider the evolutionary path from cellular life to  
multicellular organisms, and perhaps beyond (albeit if so then necessarily  
imperceptibly by us multicellular organisms).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

> **···**
>
> At 01:54 PM 04/28/2000 -0700, Mike Acree wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2000, 4:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/67 "2000-05-01T16:56:51Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (2000.0510.0953 PDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.0429.1845 EDT)--

> > > > as I look around even the nonhuman biological realm, I think  
> > > > I see as much competition as cooperation; and I don't see any indication  
> > > > that the former is yielding to the latter in evolution.
> > > 
> > > As I recall, Darwin claimed that cooperation was at least as important as  
> > > competition for survival.
> > 
> > It sounds as though you took my statement as a defense of competition. I  
> > was merely questioning Martin's conclusion about cooperation "winning out  
> > over" competition. [...] I don't  
> > dislike Martin's conclusion; I just didn't see much support for it.
> 
> Please construe the reference to Darwin and Kropotkin as support for  
> Martin's statement and for your preferences (and mine).
> 
> Consider the evolutionary path from pathogen to parasite to symbiote to (in  
> the case of e.g. mitochodria, intestinal flora, etc.) integral part of the  
> organism. Indeed, consider the evolutionary path from cellular life to  
> multicellular organisms, and perhaps beyond (albeit if so then necessarily  
> imperceptibly by us multicellular organisms).

No question that there's lots of cooperation in evolutionary biology. We  
might go so far as to include the coevolution of colors in flowers and of  
color vision in bees as another example. But none of this constitutes  
evidence that cooperation is \_winning out over\_ competition, which is quite  
a different claim.

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2000, 8:08pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/68 "2000-05-01T20:08:21Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.05.01.1310)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.0429.1845 EDT)--

> As I recall, Darwin claimed that cooperation was at least as  
> important as competition for survival.

Mike Acree (2000.0510.0953 PDT)

> No question that there's lots of cooperation in evolutionary  
> biology.

I have some questions.

1. What is "cooperation"?

2. How did Darwin (or any evolutionary biologist) know when  
it was occurring and when it was not?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Acree\_Mike](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Acree_Mike)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2000, 8:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/69 "2000-05-01T20:40:18Z")

</div>

[From Mike Acree (2000.0501.1340 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2000.05.01.1310)--

> I have some questions.
> 
> 1. What is "cooperation"?
> 
> 2. How did Darwin (or any evolutionary biologist) know when  
> it was occurring and when it was not?

Reasonable questions. It was my intention to be granting the most liberal  
possible definition of cooperation in my example of the bees and the  
flowers. But we should probably ask Martin. I don't necessarily fault him  
for having introduced the terms without defining them, but I do think he  
owes us an explanation (when he returns) of the very strange idea that  
cooperation and competition are themselves in competition. That appears to  
imply that all evolutionary processes of either type might in some sense  
just as well have been the other. I think of them more as operating in  
different realms; but if there is any definable relation between cooperation  
and competition, I would be more inclined to see that relationship as  
cooperative than as "winner takes all."

Mike

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2000, 4:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080/70 "2000-05-02T16:29:24Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2000.05.02.0930)]

Me:

> I have some questions.
> 
> 1. What is "cooperation"?
> 
> 2. How did Darwin (or any evolutionary biologist) know when  
> it was occurring and when it was not?

Mike Acree (2000.0501.1340 PDT)--

> Reasonable questions.

As an exercise, how about trying to answer them in terms  
of a control of input model of behavior.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/anarchy/1080.md?page=3)