[Palmyrene]

Back to the crime question.
What if someone raped or murdered?
What if there was a serial killer?

Who would investigate the crime to find out who committed it? And how will he\she be caught?

Volunteers and other people interested would do so. Such a job will be attractive to some people and have alot of prestige attached to it.

Generally what I expect, since there's no potential consequences for getting involved in a potentially dangerous situation (for example a man beating his wife or something), pretty much everyone will be a "cop" so to speak. Everyone will be keeping an eye on what's going on and stopping violence or injustice when they see it.

So basically, bartenders would keep a close eye on what that shady dude is doing to that woman's drink and potentially let the other staff members know that this man is dangerous or maybe the other regulars at the bar would notice and begin to distract the shady dude or try to keep the woman as far away from him as possible.

TL:DR those old ladies you see staring out at the street from their homes would be the greatest detectives of them all.

And to that matter, these sciences like Forensic science need to be taught. How will they be taught? if there is no central authority, there won't be any universities, and thus no one would learn these skills.

Education in an anarchist society will be organized in the form of network. Instead of the lock-step of compulsory schooling in a fixed place, an anarchist society will work in piecemeal ways to decentralize the process of learning and enrich it through contact with many places and people all over the city: workshops, teachers at home or walking through the city, professionals willing to take on the young as helpers, older children teaching younger children, museums, youth groups traveling, scholarly seminars, industrial workshops, old people, and so on.

An anarchist society will conceive of all these situations as forming the backbone of the learning process; survey all these situations, describe them, and publish them as the city's "curriculum"; then let students, children, their families and neighborhoods weave together for themselves the situations that comprise their "school".

It would work very similar to how the halaqa or madrasa system used to work.

Basically a person who knows or is experienced in forensic sciences would teach it to students by either taking them as apprentices/helpers or creating a curriculum to teach them.

On the long term, how will scientific progress be maintain if there isn't a central authority directing funding and effort for it?

Via learned societies. People who are experts or interested in a particular field or thing would come together to devote themselves to collaborative research and experiment. The equipment would be obtained by working with manufacturers and producers who would make it (presumably by commission and in collaboration with engineers specializing in the creation of such equipment).

That's kind of how it already works now.

How will the infrastructure be built and maintained without a central authority to direct and organize efforts towards it?

Which infastructure because the answers depends on what it is.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Volunteers and other people interested would do so. Such a job will be attractive to some people and have alot of prestige attached to it.

Generally what I expect, since there's no potential consequences for getting involved in a potentially dangerous situation (for example a man beating his wife or something), pretty much everyone will be a "cop" so to speak. Everyone will be keeping an eye on what's going on and stopping violence or injustice when they see it.

So basically, bartenders would keep a close eye on what that shady dude is doing to that woman's drink and potentially let the other staff members know that this man is dangerous or maybe the other regulars at the bar would notice and begin to distract the shady dude or try to keep the woman as far away from him as possible.

TL:DR those old ladies you see staring out at the street from their homes would be the greatest detectives of them all.

What if the crime was committed in the dark (i.e. not where everyone can see or know about, and the discovery was of the victim's body, not of the crime itself)?
These investigations take lots of resources, machines, and efforts behind them and could take international effort. How will this be achieved when there is no central authority?

Education in an anarchist society will be organized in the form of network. Instead of the lock-step of compulsory schooling in a fixed place, an anarchist society will work in piecemeal ways to decentralize the process of learning and enrich it through contact with many places and people all over the city: workshops, teachers at home or walking through the city, professionals willing to take on the young as helpers, older children teaching younger children, museums, youth groups traveling, scholarly seminars, industrial workshops, old people, and so on.

Passing that this is wildly inefficient and would slow down all the major sciences.
What if the experts don't want to participate in this random process?

An anarchist society will conceive of all these situations as forming the backbone of the learning process; survey all these situations, describe them, and publish them as the city's "curriculum"; then let students, children, their families and neighborhoods weave together for themselves the situations that comprise their "school".

So, this "anarchist" society will form a mini-state specifically for education?
Since, to "survey, transcribe, and publish" would require dedicated efforts and resources.
Without an "authority" to collect these resources, then I assume would be voluntary, but what if some don't want to participate in the cost?

It would work very similar to how the halaqa or madrasa system used to work.

It will work similarly to a system that doesn't work?

Basically a person who knows or is experienced in forensic sciences would teach it to students by either taking them as apprentices/helpers or creating a curriculum to teach them.

And why would that be?

Via learned societies. People who are experts or interested in a particular field or thing would come together to devote themselves to collaborative research and experiment. The equipment would be obtained by working with manufacturers and producers who would make it (presumably by commission and in collaboration with engineers specializing in the creation of such equipment).

Most of the machines required aren't easily produced and require vast networks or corporations and states to work together to build all the parts and assemble them, so you'd need a state or a state structure to do this.

Public intellectuals would require a reward system in place to work, why would they work for free?
You might say, but this science will benefit society, but that would ignore the fact that this benefit is not always clear. In fact, it's almost never clear from the get-go.
e.g. Lasers which only recently came to be beneficial had the science behind it established by Einstein long ago.

Which infastructure because the answers depends on what it is.

All of it; Electricity, freshwater, communication, roads, etc

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
What if the crime was committed in the dark (i.e. not where everyone can see or know about, and the discovery was of the victim's body, not of the crime itself)?

Well that's still a problem even in hierarchial societies with police and what not. There is little the police can do about kidnappings, murders in isolated areas, etc.

At least in an anarchist society, if violence or injustice happens publicly, there will be no bystanders because bystanders operate on the idea that someone else will come and help and this is because they grew up with the idea to rely on authorities.

These investigations take lots of resources, machines, and efforts behind them and could take international effort. How will this be achieved when there is no central authority?

Generally there would be an federation of detectives who will cooperate with communities, witnesses, and other key actors to solve the "crime" and bring the "criminal" to justice.

So let's say there waa a serial killer going on a serial killing spree and moving across the country. And let's say the volunteers don't know who it is (I doubt this because, again, even the old ladies who stare you down from their windows will be cops).

First, the volunteers or detectives will send this information to all other detectives in their federation. Then the federation will coordinate an information campaign with journalists, advertisers, and unions to spread awareness of the murderer. Thirdly, the volunteers and their collaborators may establish a system to track where the murderer may be.

There is no guarantee they may get him, but there would be a higher chance in an anarchist society than in a hierarchial one specifically because they'll get much more participation and cooperation.

Passing that this is wildly inefficient and would slow down all the major sciences.

Could you explain why this is the cause?

What if the experts don't want to participate in this random process?

They don't need to but even they would see benefit in having a helper or apprentice and teaching isn't a bad job to have if you're retired or have some free time in between cases. Forensics work is tough and having a helping hand is always a good thing.

So, this "anarchist" society will form a mini-state specifically for education?
Since, to "survey, transcribe, and publish" would require dedicated efforts and resources.
Without an "authority" to collect these resources, then I assume would be voluntary, but what if some don't want to participate in the cost?

Pardon? For starters how would establishing a network of collaborating educators and learning be a mini-state? Do you think Amber Alert is a mini-state?

And yes, it would require dedicated efforts and resources. And yes they would be voluntary. If people want to create this sort of education system, they can. And if people don't want to participate, yes they don't have to.

What? Do you think people should be forced into giving resources and effort to create an education system they may not even want? Is this your idea of "efficiency"? Anasawad that's a very easy way of getting sabatoge or protests.

It will work similarly to a system that doesn't work?

Pardon? Exactly what about the historical madrasa or halaqa system didn't work?

And why would that be?

They may want to teach their craft to others so that they can share their passion for forensics and hopefully grow the field. They may need helpers to do some manual work or stuff that they can't focus on.

You're an engineer. You should be able to come up with your own reasons.

Most of the machines required aren't easily produced and require vast networks or corporations and states to work together to build all the parts and assemble them, so you'd need a state or a state structure to do this.

Not quite. The factories and institutes which create the machines are owned by states and corporations but that doesn't mean they make them. The workers make the machines. They're the ones who plan them out and run the manufacturing process.

The vast networks you're talking about is exactly how they would be made in an anarchist society. You'd just directly deal with the workers themselves instead of the middlemen like states or corporations. And of course, cutting off the middleman makes everything more efficient .

Public intellectuals would require a reward system in place to work, why would they work for free?

Most public intellectuals do research because they are interested in the field itself, not because they want money. Money is only a tool; a means to an end.

If you cut off the need to make money to support themselves (since their basic needs will be met), they don't have to work on projects that give them lots of money but that they don't like. Instead, they can research things they're passionate about.

Regardless they aren't working for someone. They're working for themselves. This is their passion, their research. They do scientific work because that's what captivates them.

The people who go into science for money don't go on to progress humanity, it's people who love their work that do the research which advances the world.

You might say, but this science will benefit society, but that would ignore the fact that this benefit is not always clear. In fact, it's almost never clear from the get-go.
e.g. Lasers which only recently came to be beneficial had the science behind it established by Einstein long ago.

Of course, which is why it's important to remove financial influence from science.

Capitalism and states focus on things that have already been made or developed. They don't like to take major risks or research something that appears or looks worthless. Especially if it doesn't have an immediate return in profits.

The result is that we have potentially lost thousands of scientific development and research that could've changed humanity all because it didn't have proper funding.

All of it; Electricity, freshwater, communication, roads, etc

All the workers who are needed to set up that infastructure will come together, federate, and establish networks to transport the resources and information necessary to build those resources.

Anything else depends on specifically what situation and type of infastructure you're talking about. I can only give you a general answer for a general question.

[Palmyrene]

@anasawad

And to extrapolate on my point:

Careerist scientists who focus on getting to the top of the board of directors and want to have the best resumes are the biggest reason why China has so many fake scientific publications and articles.

Even the scientists who want to do legitimate research are forced to engage in this kind of behavior because being a scientist in China is a very career-oriented endeavour. Due to the hierarchial nature of these institutions, scientists must fake research to get to the position they need to do what they want to do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society ... ted-survey

Most Chinese scientists write academic papers to get promoted, survey finds

Most Chinese scientific researchers admit they write papers purely for promotion because the country’s academic appraisal system favours quantity over quality. More than 93 per cent of scientists surveyed by the China Association for Science and Technology said getting promoted was their major motivation to publish papers. Nearly half of the researchers polled said they believed the way authorities appraised scientific research was “misleading”, according to the survey, which is conducted every five years and this year covered over 48,000 researchers across the country.

The publish-or-perish culture has contributed to the rampant academic misconduct that has emerged in recent years, according to some researchers.

“Papers are an important channel for academic exchange and demonstrating achievements, but now that they’ve become the major – or even the only – criterion in appraisals, they could have a bad influence,” said Wang Pei, a doctoral candidate at the University of Science and Technology of China’s (USTC) Earth and space sciences school.

The eagerness to rack up published papers had led to recent retraction scandals, he added.

In the latest case, a sociologist from prestigious Nanjing University has had over 100 papers retracted recently by international and Chinese publications. Liang Ying is under investigation after China Youth Daily accused her of plagiarism and the duplicate submission of at least 15 of her papers, the university said in an announcement last week. Yuan Lanfeng, a researcher specialising in theoretical chemistry at USTC, said under the existing system, “almost everyone would agree that any paper is linked to the conferring of academic titles”.

“In fact, many papers are a long way from the pursuit of scientific progress and the authors are well aware of that – so naturally they will say [in the survey] that they are just publishing the papers to get promoted,” Yuan said. In a directive issued in July, the State Council, China’s cabinet, vowed to eliminate by the end of the year the assessment of research work solely based on the number of published papers. Instead, it wanted to “establish an assessment system oriented towards quality in innovation and contribution, one that can precisely assess the scientific, technical, economic, social and cultural values of a scientific achievement”.

The survey also found that researchers’ ownership of patents had gone up in the past couple of years, but there was little relationship between their achievements and market needs. Just 38 per cent of the scientists polled said there were practical applications for their research. It also found that scientific researchers worked an average of nearly 50 hours a week – 2.4 hours more than they did five years ago. Their wages have increased 22 per cent to about 90,000 yuan a year, but they were less happy with their income now than in previous years.

In fact, this sort of behavior occurs in America too. However it is different. In America, corporations and "scientific" journals looking to make a quick buck and publish scientific articles without peer review or standards in order to either make lots of money off of unsuspecting scientists or impose an agenda (usually by pharmaceutical companies).

400,000 Scientists All Over the World Have Been Published in Fake Journals

The organization* that uncovered the world of offshore tax havens and rogue international finance in the Panama Papers and Luxembourg Leaks has shifted its attention to fake science. In collaboration with reporters from 18 news outlets all over the world, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung examined 175,000 scientific articles published by five of the world’s most prominent pseudo-scientific publishing platforms. The result? The collaboration found that some 400,000 scientists worldwide have been published in these journals since 2013.

Predatory publishers target individual scientists by email, charge high fees in exchange for publication, and forego international peer-review standards to publish quickly and frequently. Some of these pseudo-scientific journals also publish work from employees of pharmaceutical companies. Some members of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported that “In addition to failing to perform peer or editorial committee reviews of articles, the companies charge to publish articles, accept papers by employees of pharmaceutical and other companies as well as by climate-change skeptics promoting questionable theories.”

For example, the French newspaper LeMonde uncovered a study that seemingly originated from nowhere:

"In one case, an article in the Journal of Integrative Oncology stated that a clinical study had shown the extract of propolis, a secretion that bees use to glue hives together, was more effective than chemotherapy in treating colorectal cancer. The study was fake and the authors were affiliated with a research center that doesn’t exist, Le Monde reported."

The publisher in question, OMICS, is currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission for fraud, according to The India Express. The Express also discovered that the 300 plus predatory publishers in India charge rates from $30 to $1,800 for article publication.

Though universities and research institutes warn scientists to steer clear of these publishers, many were shocked by their widespread, rapid growth. According to the report, Süddeutsche Zeitung and German broadcasters NDR and WDR found that over 5,000 German scientists alone have been published in such journals, to the chagrin of Nobel Prize winners like Ferid Murad, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, who said that the credibility of science is at stake.

Stefan Hell, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2014, told ICIJ that the pseudo-science cultivated through predatory publishing is an issue that demands action, echoing the sentiments of other Nobel prizewinners and research groups. “If there is a system behind it,” Hall said, “and there are people who aren’t just duped by it but who take advantage of it, then it has to be shut down.”

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Well that's still a problem even in hierarchial societies with police and what not. There is little the police can do about kidnappings, murders in isolated areas, etc.

At least in an anarchist society, if violence or injustice happens publicly, there will be no bystanders because bystanders operate on the idea that someone else will come and help and this is because they grew up with the idea to rely on authorities.

What you're describing are vigilantes. They effectively never solve crimes, rather only make things worse.
A police force is a professional and trained task force to achieve one specific job which is why crimes are much easier to solve now than before.

Generally there would be an federation of detectives who will cooperate with communities, witnesses, and other key actors to solve the "crime" and bring the "criminal" to justice.

So a state.

So let's say there waa a serial killer going on a serial killing spree and moving across the country. And let's say the volunteers don't know who it is (I doubt this because, again, even the old ladies who stare you down from their windows will be cops).

Ooh. ok.
So in an anarchist society, there won't be cities, just small towns, and villages?
Because in a city, many many darkspots exist, and those "old ladies" don't watch everything.

First, the volunteers or detectives will send this information to all other detectives in their federation. Then the federation will coordinate an information campaign with journalists, advertisers, and unions to spread awareness of the murderer. Thirdly, the volunteers and their collaborators may establish a system to track where the murderer may be.

So vigilantes who would need to establish a system to ensure that the information is public, to track the criminal, and to bring justice.
So a state basically.

There is no guarantee they may get him, but there would be a higher chance in an anarchist society than in a hierarchial one specifically because they'll get much more participation and cooperation.

Quite the opposite.
When anarchy ensues, it's usually when criminals are never caught.
The only reason criminals are caught is because there is order and an authority. You remove that, it's a free world baby; And by free world I mean everyone is killing each other.
Because that whole fuzzy rainbow stuff about how everyone would cooperate, that doesn't exist. Psychopaths exist.

Could you explain why this is the cause?

You're proposing to replace a system that educates everyone and ensures the maximum spread of information through bulk distribution, with a system that leaves everything random (i.e. Chaos).

They don't need to but even they would see benefit in having a helper or apprentice and teaching isn't a bad job to have if you're retired or have some free time in between cases. Forensics work is tough and having a helping hand is always a good thing.

If we're talking about professions, then sure.
But when it comes to complex stuff. That helper could destroy a year's work without understanding what he\she even did.
Not all sciences are the same.

Pardon? For starters how would establishing a network of collaborating educators and learning be a mini-state? Do you think Amber Alert is a mini-state?

Well, to establish a network you need organizers, and walla, you have a state. A limited state, sure, but a state nontheless.
And, the amber alert system is heavily run by the state.

And yes, it would require dedicated efforts and resources. And yes they would be voluntary. If people want to create this sort of education system, they can. And if people don't want to participate, yes they don't have to.

What? Do you think people should be forced into giving resources and effort to create an education system they may not even want? Is this your idea of "efficiency"? Anasawad that's a very easy way of getting sabatoge or protests.

Then there wont be such system I guess.

And, yes, I do think people who live in a community should be forced to contribute to the education system even if they don't want to. It's called taxes, and without it we'd still be living in the stone age.

Exactly what about the historical madrasa or halaqa system didn't work?

It was incredibly limited and didn't spread knowledge anywhere near as the school system did.

Adding the population difference. What worked a 1000 years ago with a town of 20-50 thousand wont work in a city of a million+ in it.

They may want to teach their craft to others so that they can share their passion for forensics and hopefully grow the field. They may need helpers to do some manual work or stuff that they can't focus on.

You're an engineer. You should be able to come up with your own reasons.

I've known many people who are truly passionate about their fields. They get seriously annoyed by anyone trying to interfere or bug in on their work.

What you're describing only works in professions, which is why it's mainly used in professions.
The minute you start doing major sciences, this process no longer work simply because an untrained hand does more damage than help.

Not quite. The factories and institutes which create the machines are owned by states and corporations but that doesn't mean they make them. The workers make the machines. They're the ones who plan them out and run the manufacturing process.

The workers operate some, but they don't plan things out nor organize nor invest.
To establish facilities of such scale you'd need a significant amount of resources and money, along with many people to organize the work.

The vast networks you're talking about is exactly how they would be made in an anarchist society. You'd just directly deal with the workers themselves instead of the middlemen like states or corporations. And of course, cutting off the middleman makes everything more efficient .

Networks don't just happen randomly. Efficiency comes from organization, if it didn't, then organizers wouldn't be a thing.

Most public intellectuals do research because they are interested in the field itself, not because they want money. Money is only a tool; a means to an end.

If you cut off the need to make money to support themselves (since their basic needs will be met), they don't have to work on projects that give them lots of money but that they don't like. Instead, they can research things they're passionate about.

Doesn't mean monetary reward is no longer needed.
People don't work only for their basic needs. They work to be able to afford luxuries and extra leisure.

Regardless they aren't working for someone. They're working for themselves. This is their passion, their research. They do scientific work because that's what captivates them.

Then you'd have far far fewer scientists because since there wouldn't be a reward system then the people there for the money (i.e. the majority) would elect to do the least amount of effort they need to live, primarily because as far as they're concerned the end result will all be the same.
People are lazy. Why work 15 hours a day when you can achieve the same results in just 1 hour.

The people who go into science for money don't go on to progress humanity, it's people who love their work that do the research which advances the world.

Of course, which is why it's important to remove financial influence from science.

Capitalism and states focus on things that have already been made or developed. They don't like to take major risks or research something that appears or looks worthless. Especially if it doesn't have an immediate return in profits.

Every technology we have today in the world is made by states.
Corporations invest in short term technologies with short term returns.
States invest in long term technologies with long term returns.

By removing the returns, you effectively stopped science as it would be pending until someone who is truly passionate about a very specific field comes along, and even then that person wouldn't have anywhere near as enough resources and associates to be able to achieve major results.

The progress that takes years will start taking centuries.
Basically, the same exact way as it used to before modern states appear because they operated in a relatively similar manner as you're describing with few exceptions.

The result is that we have potentially lost thousands of scientific development and research that could've changed humanity all because it didn't have proper funding.

There are public institutions and universities where everyone can do their research even if no one decided to invest in it. That would be using public money provided by taxes and this system exists in all developed countries.

All the workers who are needed to set up that infastructure will come together, federate, and establish networks to transport the resources and information necessary to build those resources.

Anything else depends on specifically what situation and type of infastructure you're talking about. I can only give you a general answer for a general question.

So, basically, they'll come together and establish networks, and since this is a complex tax, some members will handle organization, so we'll have organized networks spread across several areas assumingly. But they need resources to build the infrastructure and maintain it, which means they'll ask people to contribute; But, some people wont want to contribute and this will drive a wedge in society as the people who do contribute resources will be angry why they're working for these guys to benefit without contributing anything, which means they'll be forced to contribute or leave.
Basically, you're describing a state.

Careerist scientists who focus on getting to the top of the board of directors and want to have the best resumes are the biggest reason why China has so many fake scientific publications and articles.

The same is done in the US with I believe 80-90% of all papers being false.
The system in these countries need repairs, but chaos is surely not a replacement.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
What you're describing are vigilantes. They effectively never solve crimes, rather only make things worse.
A police force is a professional and trained task force to achieve one specific job which is why crimes are much easier to solve now than before.

How is it similar to vigilantes at all?

Vigilantes deal out punishments for crimes while anarchist volunteers would only apprehend criminals.

And these volunteer detectives would be professional and trained to apprehend criminals. They have an entire federation for God's sake.

And combined with my system for education, detectives-in-training would get actual experience from working with real life detectives as opposed to just reading from books.

So a state.

How is that state? There is no hierarchy. A hierarchy is necessary for a state.

Ooh. ok.
So in an anarchist society, there won't be cities, just small towns, and villages?
Because in a city, many many darkspots exist, and those "old ladies" don't watch everything.

There are neighborhoods and generally people know everyone in their neighborhood and all the potential "darkspots" there. They can manage themselves.

So vigilantes who would need to establish a system to ensure that the information is public, to track the criminal, and to bring justice.
So a state basically.

Is Amber Alert a state? Are news stations a state? This federation wouldn't even be hierarchial so there isn't a state by default. So you have a better argument towards saying the media is a state than this federation.

Remember, these volunteers are just that, volunteers. Everyone has the capability to do investigations and deal with criminals ad hoc (like the bar example I gave initially). The only difference between them and volunteer detectives is that the volunteers make it their job.

The volunteers themselves have no authority. They gain power to apprehend through the confidence society gives them and they are held accountable because people can also apprehend them if they get too out of line.

Quite the opposite.
When anarchy ensues, it's usually when criminals are never caught.
The only reason criminals are caught is because there is order and an authority. You remove that, it's a free world baby; And by free world I mean everyone is killing each other.

Ah yes, the stereotypical notion of "anarchy as chaos". Do you have so little arguments that you have to rely on a misconception to make a meaningful retort?

Can you give a reason why everyone would suddenly kill each other? Would you start murdering everyone you didn't like if the law didn't tell to? And if everyone is just dying to kill each other why would you think that a man on a pedestal saying "no" would stop them.

Why do think threatening someone who going to kill someone with death would deter them from doing so? If they're really so adamant about killing that person, they'll do it any way and just hide the body; just like they do now.

So you have a system where you don't prevent murder from happening and you give a specific group of people legal power to do anything they want (i.e. cops). Great! What an amazing solution! Not only is the murder rate still high, but now cops can get in on the murdering! Yay!

In anarchy, everything is permitted but everything is prohibited too. If someone is beating or murdering someone on the street, people will be more likely to step in because there is no authority. If a person is murdered the whole community will come together to help investigate who did it, because there is no authority.

The existence of a murderer or dangerous individual directly effects them and their life. They can no longer just rely on an authority to deal with things for them, people need to come together and deal with things themselves.

I expect that people would deal with crime before it happens. If a community knows someone is a mean drunk, they may try to help him find help to stop it before it gets too late and he hurts someone. If a community knows a teenager whose a shut in and is socially isolated, they may try to bring him out of his shell.

These things are all possible in an anarchist society. They are not possible in a hierarchial society.

Because that whole fuzzy rainbow stuff about how everyone would cooperate, that doesn't exist. Psychopaths exist.

If there is a psychopathic murderer in your town and there is no cop or authority to help you, you and the rest of your community are going to get ready to deal with them.

You're proposing to replace a system that educates everyone and ensures the maximum spread of information through bulk distribution, with a system that leaves everything random (i.e. Chaos).

Explain how my education system is "random". Because the compulsory schooling system does not educate everyone nor does it ensure the maximum spread of information. Some schools in the South aren't even taught that slavery is the cause of the civil war.

Hell, in Sudan and other third world countries, schools aren't even funded enough to give students the right education. In America, some black schools aren't given enough funding for a good enough education.

This is your "guarantee that everyone is educated"? This is "ensures the maximum spread of information"?

My system would make any subject and any form of education available to anyone who wants that education. And where classes are being offered in the city is easily available to everyone within it. The style of learning would be hands on and experimental (because how students are taught depends on the teacher).

If we're talking about professions, then sure.
But when it comes to complex stuff. That helper could destroy a year's work without understanding what he\she even did.
Not all sciences are the same.

Well it's the fault of the master for not telling the helper to not touch that or making sure that certain equipment is off limits. If the helper goes against the wishes of the master than you may have a point but I don't expect all helpers to touch things they aren't allowed to and the benefits of such a system would outweigh these small cases.

And this doesn't mean that the master taking the apprentice can't test them in terms of following directions before taking them in.

Well, to establish a network you need organizers, and walla, you have a state. A limited state, sure, but a state nontheless.
And, the amber alert system is heavily run by the state.

Organizers or leaders isn't indicative of a hierarchy or state. Remember the definition of a hierarchy:

Hierarchy primarily refers to relationships of command and subordination. It's origins seem to be in descriptions of the mechanics of divine command in the world: ranks of angels, ranks of religious officials, etc., with all ultimately subordinated to a god. We also use the term to describe systemic advantages and privileges granted to individuals on the basis of particular social or economic roles. Mere individual differences (in capacity, experience, performance, influence,etc.) are not enough to establish hierarchy. Hierarchies involve roles and persist, often whether or not the individual is actually capable of fulfilling the role. (Bad managers still command exceptional employees. Weak or inept rulers may be deposed, losing the role, but it is still always the ruler who rules. Etc.)

Informal leaders and temporary coordinators aren't rulers. And their "authority" only goes as far as people listening to them. Once they stop listening, they lose "authority".

And amber alert itself is not a state. Because you specifically said that a network with organizers is a state. Does this mean amber alert is a state within a state?

Then there wont be such system I guess.

What system?

And, yes, I do think people who live in a community should be forced to contribute to the education system even if they don't want to. It's called taxes, and without it we'd still be living in the stone age.

The idea of community itself is ambiguous. What is a community anyways? How is it defined? Forcing people to pay money for living in a "community" whose borders are defined by you is ridiculous.

And industrialization happened without taxation or state funding so clearly not.

It was incredibly limited and didn't spread knowledge anywhere near as the school system did.

Adding the population difference. What worked a 1000 years ago with a town of 20-50 thousand wont work in a city of a million+ in it.

It was incredibly limited due to how limited communications and interconnectedness was back then. When the first modern schools were built they were just as limited due to a lack of transportation and availability.

That doesn't mean the system itself is bad or limited. It was limited due to other factors at play.

I've known many people who are truly passionate about their fields. They get seriously annoyed by anyone trying to interfere or bug in on their work.

They won't be forced to take a helper. The people who want to take a helper or apprentice will. Those who don't, won't. It's as simple as that.

What you're describing only works in professions, which is why it's mainly used in professions.
The minute you start doing major sciences, this process no longer work simply because an untrained hand does more damage than help.

Like I said, you can establish boundaries. Tell the helpers what they can or cannot do. Only use the helpers for low intensity tasks. Do a screening process; test the potential helper to see if they are capable of the tasks they'll encounter.

There are ways to deal with this.

The workers operate some, but they don't plan things out nor organize nor invest.
To establish facilities of such scale you'd need a significant amount of resources and money, along with many people to organize the work.

The workers would make the plans themselves. They have an intimate understanding of how to operate the machinery, at what time they'd finish, and how to organize themselves since they understand their roles and jobs. And additional resources would be obtained by the workers who produce those resources.

Money won't be an issue and capital investment would be nonexistent. People will transfer and exchange resources far more directly than in capitalism.

Networks don't just happen randomly. Efficiency comes from organization, if it didn't, then organizers wouldn't be a thing.

Networks do arise spontaneously though. Look into complex networks. Networks aren't organized, they are very messy and intertwined.

Doesn't mean monetary reward is no longer needed.
People don't work only for their basic needs. They work to be able to afford luxuries and extra leisure.

That would be readily available too and there is still some kind of individual reward. But from the scientists I've seen, doing science is it's own reward.

Then you'd have far far fewer scientists because since there wouldn't be a reward system then the people there for the money (i.e. the majority) would elect to do the least amount of effort they need to live, primarily because as far as they're concerned the end result will all be the same.

If they're only there for the money and they no longer need money, they wouldn't be scientists at all.

Regardless the scientists there for the money, like I've shown in my other post, only make things more difficult for legitimate scientists and only create fake science thus putting us backwards not forwards.

Turns out, forcing people to do science for money ends up with worse science not better science. I would rather have 50 good scientists than 100 bad ones who do fake research to get more money.

People are lazy. Why work 15 hours a day when you can achieve the same results in just 1 hour.

I don't understand what you're saying.

People don't just work to get food and water and then stop. Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (yes, the irony is not lost on me):



Basic needs are on the bottom of the pyramid. People have hobbies, goals, dreams, things they want to do. They don't just get food and water and turn into zombies.

Regardless, like you said, people want luxuries. They want skateboards and cool clothes and video games. They want to go on cruises and travel to different parts of the world.

And in an anarchist society, this'll all be cheaper or even free (in the case of crusies and traveling) compared to a hierarchial society.

Yeah Einstein was just in it for the money. So was Newton.

Both of these people literally lived like they were poor even though they were rich.

Every technology we have today in the world is made by states.

It's made by scientists not states.

In fact most technology in the world was made by individuals who discovered it. The only significant technology made by states is the internet.

Corporations invest in short term technologies with short term returns.
States invest in long term technologies with long term returns.

States don't do that. It's a waste of funding and tax dollars to research technologies that may not even work.

The U.S. is already in hot water due to how much R&D money is put into the military or NASA (from liberals and conservatives respectively).

States, with their limited budgets, can only take fund projects to a certain extent.

By removing the returns, you effectively stopped science as it would be pending until someone who is truly passionate about a very specific field comes along, and even then that person wouldn't have anywhere near as enough resources and associates to be able to achieve major results.

1. What returns exactly?

2. Why would it be pending?

3. Why would they not have enough resources.

In most of our conversations about anarchism, you make shitloads of assumptions.

The progress that takes years will start taking centuries.
Basically, the same exact way as it used to before modern states appear because they operated in a relatively similar manner as you're describing with few exceptions.

You do know that industrialisation wasn't started by states right?

There are public institutions and universities where everyone can do their research even if no one decided to invest in it. That would be using public money provided by taxes and this system exists in all developed countries.

They aren't allowed to do whatever research they want. They have to get permission for funding and even then there's always the threat that this funding would get removed. In other words, there's strings attached.

In an anarchist society, there would be no strings attached. Scientists would obtain equipment and resources by collaborating with the producers of those resources. Thus, society as a whole chooses how much it values scientific research.

So, basically, they'll come together and establish networks, and since this is a complex tax, some members will handle organization, so we'll have organized networks spread across several areas assumingly. But they need resources to build the infrastructure and maintain it, which means they'll ask people to contribute; But, some people wont want to contribute and this will drive a wedge in society as the people who do contribute resources will be angry why they're working for these guys to benefit without contributing anything, which means they'll be forced to contribute or leave.

I don't think I'd call them "organizers"; they're more like messengers. They are people sent out to tell everyone what the group's thoughts or actions are. They're basically representatives that are recallable at any time. That isn't a "leader" in a traditional sense now is it?

And people are putting in effort into the education system for themselves. Whether other people use it or join it is irrelevant. It is for the net benefit of the entire city and they're getting rewarded for it anyways so it doesn't even matter.

Basically, you're describing a state.

A state would force everyone to work for it ir go to jail. This isn't happening in your example.

The same is done in the US with I believe 80-90% of all papers being false.
The system in these countries need repairs, but chaos is surely not a replacement.

Nothing in the system I described is anything resembling to chaos. Saying it's chaos over and over won't change how it's an intricately designed network based on egalitarianism. It's like saying "tribes are savages" over and over even though they aren't.

Saying "anarchy is chaos" is such a stupid and easily rebutted argument. I can literally just use the etymology of the word to argue against it. Anarchy means "no rulers" not "chaos".

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

How is it similar to vigilantes at all?

Vigilantes deal out punishments for crimes while anarchist volunteers would only apprehend criminals.

Aren't they civilians?

And these volunteer detectives would be professional and trained to apprehend criminals. They have an entire federation for God's sake.

How will they be professional and trained?
If they're going to be regular people, then they're not professionals nor have high level of training.
And if they're trained professionals, then they're not regular people but a special class of people with such training.

How is that state? There is no hierarchy. A hierarchy is necessary for a state.

Organizers> Staff (Professionals)> trainees.
Simple hierarchy.
You're just proposing a decentralized state.

There are neighborhoods and generally people know everyone in their neighborhood and all the potential "darkspots" there. They can manage themselves.

So each "neighborhood" would have its own services and businesses and everything?
So, a cluster of towns basically.

If it was in cities, then the size population alone would prevent everyone from knowing each other.

Furthermore, the idea that in a city, there wont be dark isolated spots where someone could do a crime is fictional.

Is Amber Alert a state? Are news stations a state? This federation wouldn't even be hierarchial so there isn't a state by default. So you have a better argument towards saying the media is a state than this federation.

They're part of a state.
A state is made up of many networks, but a limited mini state can be made up of a couple of networks.

Remember, these volunteers are just that, volunteers. Everyone has the capability to do investigations and deal with criminals ad hoc (like the bar example I gave initially). The only difference between them and volunteer detectives is that the volunteers make it their job.

If they're volunteers, then they're not trained professionals.
And if they're trained professionals, then they're not regular volunteers.

And if you want to solve crimes, you need the evidence; Untrained volunteers could damage, contaminate, or destroy evidence simply due to lack of experience and training in handling it.

As such, in a system where criminal investigations are done by volunteers, solving crimes and achieving justice would be incredibly difficult and pretty much based on luck.

Ah yes, the stereotypical notion of "anarchy as chaos". Do you have so little arguments that you have to rely on a misconception to make a meaningful retort?

Anarchism, just like libertarianism and other anti-state ideologies are idealistic. They assume the best of people's nature.

Can you give a reason why everyone would suddenly kill each other? Would you start murdering everyone you didn't like if the law didn't tell to? And if everyone is just dying to kill each other why would you think that a man on a pedestal saying "no" would stop them.

When there is no state or authority in general enforcing order, disputes quickly escalate, and violence ensues.
Simply because there is no barriers in place.
Not only psychopaths and sadists, but even regular people would indeed kill each other routinely.
Just look at any event where state authorities are weak or aren't present, crime immediately skyrockets because killing that person you hate and have a grudge with can suddenly be done without consequences.

If you were in a bar and had a fight, that could quickly escalate to murder because, remember, no rules.

Why do think threatening someone who going to kill someone with death would deter them from doing so? If they're really so adamant about killing that person, they'll do it any way and just hide the body; just like they do now.

While the majority are peaceful, it just takes those wreckless ones or the ones with anger issues or any other reason for killing to spread chaos.
Those need a deterrent.

Heck. Domestic violence would spread, because now there is no law. Corrupt and predatory business practices would become the norm because there is no deterrent. I mean, even with a state, and it's hard to stop people's greed from taking over.

So you have a system where you don't prevent murder from happening and you give a specific group of people legal power to do anything they want (i.e. cops). Great! What an amazing solution! Not only is the murder rate still high, but now cops can get in on the murdering! Yay!

If there is a deterrent, in a democratic state where the cops are accountable by law themselves (i.e. like in most developed countries.), the murder rate won't be high and the cops won't have a free license to kill.

In anarchy, everything is permitted but everything is prohibited too. If someone is beating or murdering someone on the street, people will be more likely to step in because there is no authority. If a person is murdered the whole community will come together to help investigate who did it, because there is no authority.

Why?
People are selfish, why would anyone risk their own lives to help a stranger?
Even now only few do such selfless things, you want to count on these few in everything?

The existence of a murderer or dangerous individual directly effects them and their life. They can no longer just rely on an authority to deal with things for them, people need to come together and deal with things themselves.

And they do just that, through establishing defense patrols and forces to ensure this security lasts (i.e. police) instead of counting on random people to help if they happened to be around, and also counting on these random strangers to be selfless enough to risk their own lives to help.

Also, you do realize that what you're proposing is essentially mobs of people with torches right?

I expect that people would deal with crime before it happens. If a community knows someone is a mean drunk, they may try to help him find help to stop it before it gets too late and he hurts someone. If a community knows a teenager whose a shut in and is socially isolated, they may try to bring him out of his shell.

So basically, to get this project to succeed, people will have to be constantly vigilant and worries about everything and looking behind their shoulders for any possible threat around the clock?
Instead of just outsourcing these responsibilities to a democratic state they elect to take care of these issues so they can focus on more important things?

The system you propose would stop progress completely because no one will have time to do anything since they'll be busy taking care of the very basic tasks around the clock.

If there is a psychopathic murderer in your town and there is no cop or authority to help you, you and the rest of your community are going to get ready to deal with them.

We do, by pooling up and hiring a specialized task force to ensure our safety from that person or group.
That task force is what we call the police force.
Simply because we all would come to the conclusion that hey, maybe instead of constantly having to worry about these individuals, we can put a little advanced payment and get someone who knows what he\she is doing to take care of it.
i.e. the logical thing to do.

Explain how my education system is "random". Because the compulsory schooling system does not educate everyone nor does it ensure the maximum spread of information. Some schools in the South aren't even taught that slavery is the cause of the civil war.

Because it's voluntary. If it's voluntary, then there would be a good slice that elects not to attend. And furthermore, the teaching is also voluntary which means some days the math teacher simply doesn't feel like showing up.

Hell, in Sudan and other third world countries, schools aren't even funded enough to give students the right education. In America, some black schools aren't given enough funding for a good enough education.

And?
So to solve lack of funding, instead of introducing productive economic policies and regulations to increase state revenues and by extension increase funding, we just abolish schools.
Great idea.

It's like some of these Republicans in the US whose solution to health care is to simply abolish it.

This is your "guarantee that everyone is educated"? This is "ensures the maximum spread of information"?

Yes actually, if you establish a schooling system that can take everyone, you ensure optimal results.
If you establish (or more accurately not establish but just leave things to chance) a system where schools don't exist to begin with and kids (noting that there are over 7 billion people on the planet) can choose to go to circles where one guy or girl teaches them about a certain topic and then go to another, and occasionally not learn entirely because the "teacher" who's a random person doesn't feel like teaching, then you ensure illiteracy.
We can easily look at the level of literacy before schools became a thing to know how that'd be like you know.

The lack of funding isn't a problem with the concept of schools, it's a flaw in the economic policy in the given country at hand. '

Well it's the fault of the master for not telling the helper to not touch that or making sure that certain equipment is off limits. If the helper goes against the wishes of the master than you may have a point but I don't expect all helpers to touch things they aren't allowed to and the benefits of such a system would outweigh these small cases.

Or, there can be classes where they're taught the basics before hand.

Organizers or leaders isn't indicative of a hierarchy or state. Remember the definition of a hierarchy:

An organizer or a leader would tell people he\she is organizing or leading what to do. If they don't follow, then there won't be any order or organization, therefore they'd have to listen and follow.

Informal leaders and temporary coordinators aren't rulers. And their "authority" only goes as far as people listening to them. Once they stop listening, they lose "authority".

So, basically, like how government officials are elected?

And amber alert itself is not a state. Because you specifically said that a network with organizers is a state. Does this mean amber alert is a state within a state?

The amber alert system and its likes, depending on the country, are ran by the police force, which is part of a larger ministry or department that handles several networks in criminal justice, intelligence, courts, etc to ensure security.
Therefore it is a part of a state.
The amber alert system in the US is not a network on itself, it is a service that an existing network provides.

What system?

The anarchist system you're proposing.

The idea of community itself is ambiguous. What is a community anyways? How is it defined? Forcing people to pay money for living in a "community" whose borders are defined by you is ridiculous.

If they live in a particular area and want to benefit from the services, infrastructure, etc provided in that area, then they should contribute to it.

And industrialization happened without taxation or state funding so clearly not.

Industrialization started by states and was driven by capitalistic consumerism.

It was incredibly limited due to how limited communications and interconnectedness was back then. When the first modern schools were built they were just as limited due to a lack of transportation and availability.

That doesn't mean the system itself is bad or limited. It was limited due to other factors at play.

Ooh, ok.
So to establish this system, you just need the internet (which needs massive infrastructure and servers to exist) and an advanced transportation system (also requires massive amounts of resources and infrastructure to exist).
How will you establish those exactly?

Like I said, you can establish boundaries. Tell the helpers what they can or cannot do. Only use the helpers for low intensity tasks. Do a screening process; test the potential helper to see if they are capable of the tasks they'll encounter.

There are ways to deal with this.

No, that doesn't work.
Advanced sciences require lots of study and learning before you get anywhere near a research lab or facility.
Practical training comes at the last stage of a scientific education because it's incredibly difficult to manage in such an environment without this basic info.

The workers would make the plans themselves. They have an intimate understanding of how to operate the machinery, at what time they'd finish, and how to organize themselves since they understand their roles and jobs. And additional resources would be obtained by the workers who produce those resources

Organizers are trained on organization, workers are trained to run specialized tasks.
There are many many tasks involved in these industries and requires all sorts of people from all sorts of specializations to cooperate, and they do that successfully because someone (managers) is there to organize this cooperation.
If that doesn't exist, then production would be incredibly low or simply stops.
And industries would be massively scaled back since complex systems would no longer be operational due to lack of organizers.

Money won't be an issue and capital investment would be nonexistent. People will transfer and exchange resources far more directly than in capitalism.

Barter you mean?

How will the division of value work if currency no longer exists?

Networks do arise spontaneously though. Look into complex networks. Networks aren't organized, they are very messy and intertwined.

Not really.
Complex networks of production don't happen randomly.
If you mean social networks, then sure those aren't organized, messy, and chaotic in general; But those don't produce anything and nothing is reliant on them.

If you want to produce a car, you need an organized complex network, not a random one.

That would be readily available too and there is still some kind of individual reward. But from the scientists I've seen, doing science is it's own reward.

How? Who will provide these rewards?

If they're only there for the money and they no longer need money, they wouldn't be scientists at all.

Exactly, which means far fewer scientists because most people in these fields are there for the high paying jobs and prestigious positions these jobs give, which they happened to be good at (the jobs).

Regardless the scientists there for the money, like I've shown in my other post, only make things more difficult for legitimate scientists and only create fake science thus putting us backwards not forwards.

Ooh, so anyone who wants money and prestige is a "fake" scientist now?

Turns out, forcing people to do science for money ends up with worse science not better science. I would rather have 50 good scientists than 100 bad ones who do fake research to get more money.

1- it's more like 1 for every 1000 or more who is there purely for the science and doesn't care about prestige or reward.
2- Those "bad scientists" do the bulk of the work.
Major scientific advances are usually made by thousands gathering data and all, then one genius making a discovery then thousands filling up the details and fine-tuning the resulting equation or theory.

Basic needs are on the bottom of the pyramid. People have hobbies, goals, dreams, things they want to do. They don't just get food and water and turn into zombies.

Regardless, like you said, people want luxuries. They want skateboards and cool clothes and video games. They want to go on cruises and travel to different parts of the world.

And in an anarchist society, this'll all be cheaper or even free (in the case of crusies and traveling) compared to a hierarchial society.

How will it be free or cheaper when everything is slower and harder to produce?
If the supply is down, the price goes way up.
These mass production networks are what makes things cheap, and your model doesn't produce these highly complex fine tunned mass production networks.

Yeah Einstein was just in it for the money. So was Newton.

Both of these people literally lived like they were poor even though they were rich.

And as said before, 10s of thousands of scientists fine tunned their work and turned it from writing on a paper to actual technologies that benefit everyone.

If you want just those wonder geniuses, then you wont get any technology, you'll just get lots of papers talking about potential technologies.

It's made by scientists not states.

In fact most technology in the world was made by individuals who discovered it. The only significant technology made by states is the internet.

Almost every technology that we have today, including these computers and cellphones and everything, was directed, funded, and pushed for by states. And to be even more specific, it was done by states developing military technology that simply turned out useful in civilian industries as well.

Heck, if you traced back the Iphone where every technology in it came from, pretty much all of them were made during the cold war for the purpose of nuclear warfare.

States don't do that. It's a waste of funding and tax dollars to research technologies that may not even work.

The U.S. is already in hot water due to how much R&D money is put into the military or NASA (from liberals and conservatives respectively).

States, with their limited budgets, can only take fund projects to a certain extent.

And yet, regardless of how many screaming idiots there are on either side, those fundings done by the state in the military and in NASA gave rise to every aspect of modern consumer products through the technologies it developed.

1. What returns exactly?

Rewards for scientists.

2. Why would it be pending?

Because almost no one would do it, and even when someone does, all this person would do is produce scientific papers that pretty much no one (engineers) would turn it into functional technology.
Instead of having a new technology every few days, we'd be having a new technology every few years or even decades.

3. Why would they not have enough resources.

Because those things (advanced science and technology) requires massive funding to materialize.
Not a few thousands of dollars, but a few 100s of millions or even billions of dollars of investment and funding for it to go through.
If you remove a centralized entity with the capacity to gather and devote such funding, then you won't have these advancements.

In most of our conversations about anarchism, you make shitloads of assumptions.

Assumptions based on logical conclusions from abolishing the state and the things you propose.

You do know that industrialisation wasn't started by states right?

Industrialization, depending on the country, either started by large capitalist entities (centralized corporations) or states, and it was started to increase production in order to increase profits due to consumerism.

And in both the UK and the US, the industrial revolutions were partially government-run and partially corporate-run.

They aren't allowed to do whatever research they want. They have to get permission for funding and even then there's always the threat that this funding would get removed. In other words, there are strings attached.

Actually, people choose what topic they want to do their research on.
The major funding usually comes after they formulated and completed their initial research.
And after they complete their initial research, they can either pursue private funding to expand on it or do further research or can pursue government grants (most do this) to fund it, which usually has very little restrictions.

In an anarchist society, there would be no strings attached.

There won't be any strings attached because there wont be any funding to be given.

Scientists would obtain equipment and resources by collaborating with the producers of those resources. Thus, society as a whole chooses how much it values scientific research.

So people would come together to form production networks, to produce extremely expensive equipment, then give it away to any random scientist who wishes to do any random experiment which may or may not lead to results, and even if it did, it would probably take several years for these results to turn into technology. (since the scientific basis and the technological development are two different processes) And all of that will be done without any organizers or central direction.

And you don't see how much of a fantasy that looks like?

I don't think I'd call them "organizers"; they're more like messengers. They are people sent out to tell everyone what the group's thoughts or actions are. They're basically representatives that are recallable at any time. That isn't a "leader" in a traditional sense now is it?

Ok, so they're messengers who would go back and forth between different people or groups of people in a process similar to negotiations I assume?

So before every piece of road or stretch of wiring is built, there needs to be an entire process of negotiations that may or may not lead to agreement.
And this is just roads and basic electrical and water pipes. We haven't even begun talking about the internet, satellites (the ones in orbit BTW), cell coverage, phone lines, etc.

And people are putting in effort into the education system for themselves. Whether other people use it or join it is irrelevant. It is for the net benefit of the entire city and they're getting rewarded for it anyways so it doesn't even matter.

But you run into the same problem again. If there is no enforcement mechanism, then some people will choose not to participate knowing they'll get the benefits regardless.
Then you'll end up with a game theory dilemma.

Nothing in the system I described is anything resembling to chaos. Saying it's chaos over and over won't change how it's an intricately designed network based on egalitarianism. It's like saying "tribes are savages" over and over even though they aren't.

Except what you're describing is a "system" with no central authority, no organization and even when there is organization it'd be based on prolonged negotiations between people (which, considering the number of people there is it'd take forever for a middle ground to be reached), no laws or law enforcement, no complex production networks, etc.

It's in the name, anarchy. A stateless, orderless, society.
The state isn't always oppressive, states aren't all the same, there are different systems of governance, different types of states, etc.

Saying "anarchy is chaos" is such a stupid and easily rebutted argument. I can literally just use the etymology of the word to argue against it. Anarchy means "no rulers" not "chaos".

Definition of Anarchy:

a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

>>State of disorder<<

[ingliz]

scientists... putting us backwards not forwards.

Wrong!

In 2000 the US accounted for 40% of global R&D science output. Fundamental research is overwhelmingly undertaken in or in conjunction with US research-intensive universities, and they depend on federal funding.

For some of the largest research universities, such as Stanford University, federal financing was approaching two-thirds of their reported total expenditure.

[Palmyrene]

Wrong!

In 2000 the US accounted for 40% of global R&D science output. Fundamental research is overwhelmingly undertaken in or in conjunction with US research-intensive universities, and they depend on federal funding.

For some of the largest research universities, such as Stanford University, federal financing was approaching two-thirds of their reported total expenditure.

And how much of that scientific work is "real" and not just fake research papers to get a promotion?

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
Aren't they civilians?

There wouldn't be a distinction between "civilians" and "cops".

How will they be professional and trained?
If they're going to be regular people, then they're not professionals nor have high level of training.
And if they're trained professionals, then they're not regular people but a special class of people with such training.

They'll be trained through the education system I mentioned earlier.

And also cops are regular people dude. They just have a different sort of job.

Well some workers know how to weld while others don't. Does that make them a "special class" and thus a state? No. It doesn't.

Difference alone is not capable of creating hierarchy. I've already defined what I mean by hierarchy before.

The detectives only apprehend or discover the criminal, they don't have the authority to deal out punishments and they only have power because people give them that power.

Organizers> Staff (Professionals)> trainees.
Simple hierarchy.
You're just proposing a decentralized state.

There wouldn't be an organizers. The detectives would work with other actors in an ad hoc way.

For example, adetective would figure out that a murderer escaped and then tell a news station and other detectives about this. The news station spreads this info to other news stations until everybody knows about it. The federation of detectives would now know that a murderer is on the loose and work with a cooperative populace to find the murderer.

So each "neighborhood" would have its own services and businesses and everything?
So, a cluster of towns basically.

Alright, where the fuck did I say that? Tell me. Where in the material your quoting did I say what you're saying now?

Stop making assumptions.

If it was in cities, then the size population alone would prevent everyone from knowing each other.

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a facepalm emoji.

There are neighborhoods in cities you idiot. That's what I'm referring to, everyone knows their neighborhood and who lives there.

How are you this dumb? Where else would a neighborhood be? Neighborhoods are always in cities.

They're part of a state.
A state is made up of many networks, but a limited mini state can be made up of a couple of networks.

So you're saying Amber Alert is a "mini-state"? Should Amber Alert declare independence from America?

If they're volunteers, then they're not trained professionals.
And if they're trained professionals, then they're not regular volunteers.

Oh my god I have to explain what a volunteer is. Here is the definition of a volunteer

a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

It doesn't say anything about being trained or being a professional. Just because you're a volunteer doesn't mean you aren't a trained professional. They are not mutually exclusive.

And if you want to solve crimes, you need the evidence; Untrained volunteers could damage, contaminate, or destroy evidence simply due to lack of experience and training in handling it.

As such, in a system where criminal investigations are done by volunteers, solving crimes and achieving justice would be incredibly difficult and pretty much based on luck.

Yeah the rest of this is predicated on the idiotic assumptions that volunteers can't be trained professionals.

Anarchism, just like libertarianism and other anti-state ideologies are idealistic. They assume the best of people's nature.

It's actually the opposite.

If people are inherently selfish, greedy, and repugnant why would you trust them to govern you?

Why would you think that would be a good idea? "Oh people are just awful! Let's give some of them absolute power! That makes sense!".

When there is no state or authority in general enforcing order, disputes quickly escalate, and violence ensues.
Simply because there is no barriers in place.
Not only psychopaths and sadists, but even regular people would indeed kill each other routinely.
Just look at any event where state authorities are weak or aren't present, crime immediately skyrockets because killing that person you hate and have a grudge with can suddenly be done without consequences.

If you were in a bar and had a fight, that could quickly escalate to murder because, remember, no rules.

Yeah? Well here is the thing.

1. If there was an ideological anarchist society (as in, one that had an idea about what institutions to create in an anarchist society to maintain peace and balance) such issues won't occur because anarchists already have ways of settling disputes in non-violent ways and alot of the common reasons for disputes won't happen because property rights would be different.

2. Attempting to murder someone is always a big risk because they could potentially murder you to and if you succeed, well guess whose family or community is after your head. In fact, the idea of agreeing not to kill each other over every little thing is what let us progress as a species and no, there wasn't an authority to tell them not to.

While the majority are peaceful, it just takes those wreckless ones or the ones with anger issues or any other reason for killing to spread chaos.
Those need a deterrent.

There is a majority of a population that thinls wreckless people or people with anger issues are dangerous. What I expect to happen is that they're going to get the anger issues and wreckless ones therapy or some kind of help. And if they do anything you can look at the system I proposed above.

They'd have to be extremely manipulative to even cause an entire town to kill each other and if that was the case it wouldn't even matter if there were policemen there. Hell, manipulative people find it easiest to take control of people in power. It would be easier for a manipulator to cause chaos in a hierarchial society than in an anarchist one.

Heck. Domestic violence would spread, because now there is no law.

No it wouldn't. At least the family of the abused won't tolerate it and the community won't tolerate it because that would effect their lives too.

Corrupt and predatory business practices would become the norm because there is no deterrent. I mean, even with a state, and it's hard to stop people's greed from taking over.

There's no capitalism. Anarchism is anti-capitalism.

If there is a deterrent, in a democratic state where the cops are accountable by law themselves (i.e. like in most developed countries.), the murder rate won't be high and the cops won't have a free license to kill.

Well the U.S. has both of those and murder rates are still high and police brutality is also high.

Why?
People are selfish, why would anyone risk their own lives to help a stranger?
Even now only few do such selfless things, you want to count on these few in everything?

It isn't a stranger. Generally the community in anarchist societies would be tight. If a foreigner was attacking a foreigner that would be a no-no (and they would step in) but if a foreigner was attacking a member of the community or if a member of the community was attacking a foreigner everyone would join in.

And they do just that, through establishing defense patrols and forces to ensure this security lasts (i.e. police) instead of counting on random people to help if they happened to be around, and also counting on these random strangers to be selfless enough to risk their own lives to help.

Also, you do realize that what you're proposing is essentially mobs of people with torches right?

Defense patrols and nightly watches A. don't rely on a trained force at all and B. aren't synonymous with the police.

So basically, to get this project to succeed, people will have to be constantly vigilant and worries about everything and looking behind their shoulders for any possible threat around the clock?
Instead of just outsourcing these responsibilities to a democratic state they elect to take care of these issues so they can focus on more important things?

When did I suggest any of this?

There won't always be a criminal or murderer in their community and if there was it would be obvious.

Furthermore having a police doesn't stop people today from being paranoid of criminals breaking into their house or something.

Because police deal with criminals after a crime has been committed not before.

We do, by pooling up and hiring a specialized task force to ensure our safety from that person or group.
That task force is what we call the police force.
Simply because we all would come to the conclusion that hey, maybe instead of constantly having to worry about these individuals, we can put a little advanced payment and get someone who knows what he\she is doing to take care of it.
i.e. the logical thing to do.

Everything else here is predicated upon the false assumptions of the previous arguments.

Because it's voluntary. If it's voluntary, then there would be a good slice that elects not to attend. And furthermore, the teaching is also voluntary which means some days the math teacher simply doesn't feel like showing up.

Attend where? There isn't a centralized schooling place, the school is integrated into the urban fabric of the city itself. Workshops, mueseums, art galleries, people, professionals, etc. would offer classes if they want to. Then someone would compile every single person or place offering classes and that would be the "curriculum". A child might see people learning to read or having fun making pottery and want to go learn or do that. Children have an innate desire to learn and parents have an innate desire to do whatever their child wants. There's no elections here

And yeah, a person teaching math may reschedule their next class to a later date. There nothing really wrong with that especially if they're a bunch of other math teachers offer classes as well.

And?
So to solve lack of funding, instead of introducing productive economic policies and regulations to increase state revenues and by extension increase funding, we just abolish schools.
Great idea.

You do know that there are several issues with the way schools are organized and operate right? And I mean down to their most basic concepts. The schools we currently see today are based on the Prussian model which was designed to prepare students for the military not teach them life skills.

My idea is based on how homeschooling works. In fact, it's because of the decentralized nature of the education that homeschooled students do so well in both conventional schools and college as well as gaining higher IQs.

It's like some of these Republicans in the US whose solution to health care is to simply abolish it.

It's the complete opposite. I don't want to replace it with a privatized schooling system, I want to replace with something more radical.

Yes actually, if you establish a schooling system that can take everyone, you ensure optimal results.

No. You don't. I'm not even sure what "optimal results" is supposed to mean. Do you want everyone to get As? Is that your goal for school?

If you establish (or more accurately not establish but just leave things to chance) a system where schools don't exist to begin with and kids (noting that there are over 7 billion people on the planet) can choose to go to circles where one guy or girl teaches them about a certain topic and then go to another, and occasionally not learn entirely because the "teacher" who's a random person doesn't feel like teaching, then you ensure illiteracy.

If the teacher doesn't want to teach they wouldn't be teachers in the first place.

If a teacher needs to reschedule their lessons due to issues in their life then they can. In the meantime, kids can go to another circle that does have someone available as a substitute. At least they'd get more knowledge out of that substitute instead of ignoring the substitute teacher like kids do today since, unlike kids in a compulsory schooling system, they actually want to be there.

We can easily look at the level of literacy before schools became a thing to know how that'd be like you know.

My system is nothing comparable to the system before schools.

The lack of funding isn't a problem with the concept of schools, it's a flaw in the economic policy in the given country at hand. '

The entire idea of schools needs to be rethinked.

Or, there can be classes where they're taught the basics before hand.

They can do that too. I'm not sure why you think that's incompatible with my system.

An organizer or a leader would tell people he\she is organizing or leading what to do. If they don't follow, then there won't be any order or organization, therefore they'd have to listen and follow.

That's not how it works. I've been in a student council before, literally none of them have to listen to an organizer and they'd still be organized.

Sure you may have someone temoorarily be a leader but that role won't always be permanent.

So, basically, like how government officials are elected?

If you're associating democracy with government you've clearly lost your mind.

The amber alert system and its likes, depending on the country, are ran by the police force, which is part of a larger ministry or department that handles several networks in criminal justice, intelligence, courts, etc to ensure security.
Therefore it is a part of a state.
The amber alert system in the US is not a network on itself, it is a service that an existing network provides.

Whether it is a part of a state doesn't matter. Your definition of a state is a network or something (you're pretty ambigious as to how you define state) so by default Amber Alert should be a state.

If they live in a particular area and want to benefit from the services, infrastructure, etc provided in that area, then they should contribute to it.

Define "area". Do you mean every single house is an area? Should they pay taxes for living in their house?

Furthermore these services are provided by people other than the government. Should they pay taxes for those too?

And governments aren't guaranteed to spend that tax money into those places. They could spend it all on military too.

Industrialization started by states and was driven by capitalistic consumerism.

It wasn't. There was no "substantial" government investment in anything, anywhere. Governments of the era were tiny. For example: the national apparatus of the Dutch government in 1900 consisted of about 1000 people in total. The tax burden was a whopping 2% of GDP. And yet... industrialisation was well underway. (And that made the subsequent 20th century explosion of governmental size possible.)

My argument is that the kind of enlarged government that you can create with "modern" taxes isn't required for industrialisation. Modest internal improvements have been undertaken by night watchman states for centuries if not millennia, and therefore demonstrably do not require such taxes or such a bigger government.

If your argument is now that the sort of internal improvements that can be realised by a night watchman state at a tax burden of c. 2% GDP is the conditio sine qua non for industrialisation to be become feasible, then you've just proven my point for me. Because that can be provided without the taxes and the big government that you claimed would be absolutely required earlier. Thus, it is now demonstrated that those things are not necessary for industrialisation. I think we're done here.

Fritschy, Wantje (2017) Public Finance of the Dutch Republic in Comparative Perspective: The Viability of an Early Modern Federal State (1570s-1795), pp313. Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklikje Brill NVV

Ooh, ok.
So to establish this system, you just need the internet (which needs massive infrastructure and servers to exist) and an advanced transportation system (also requires massive amounts of resources and infrastructure to exist).
How will you establish those exactly?

I've already given you a general answer as to how it would be done.

Furthermore do you know what a meshnet is?

No, that doesn't work.
Advanced sciences require lots of study and learning before you get anywhere near a research lab or facility.
Practical training comes at the last stage of a scientific education because it's incredibly difficult to manage in such an environment without this basic info.

What about "doing a screening process" and "tell helpers not to touch equipment" do you not understand.

These things already occur in today's society anyways. They do work.

Organizers are trained on organization, workers are trained to run specialized tasks.
There are many many tasks involved in these industries and requires all sorts of people from all sorts of specializations to cooperate, and they do that successfully because someone (managers) is there to organize this cooperation.
If that doesn't exist, then production would be incredibly low or simply stops.
And industries would be massively scaled back since complex systems would no longer be operational due to lack of organizers.

Most middle management are just worthless anyways and generally managers are very bad at actually knowing the intricacies of the factory or production, they just invent deadlines and that's about it.

Workers can do that far better.

Barter you mean?

How will the division of value work if currency no longer exists?

There are about a million other forms of non-capitalist exchange other than "barter" although if that's what people want they can do it.

Read up on collective force or the labor theory of value.

[Quotw]
Not really.
Complex networks of production don't happen randomly.
If you mean social networks, then sure those aren't organized, messy, and chaotic in general; But those don't produce anything and nothing is reliant on them. [/quote]

They are very messy. Companies don't establish connections based on hierarchy; why would they intentionally get a bad deal just so they can form a hierarchial network?

How? Who will provide these rewards?

People who are investing in science or the scientists who participate in collective luxuries.

Exactly, which means far fewer scientists because most people in these fields are there for the high paying jobs and prestigious positions these jobs give, which they happened to be good at (the jobs).

Most of these scientists do fake research. They're bringing us backwards not forwards.

And why the hell would you force people to do something they aren't passionate about for the money just because they're "good at it"

Ooh, so anyone who wants money and prestige is a "fake" scientist now?

Considering how they're the ones who create the most fake research, yes they are.

1- it's more like 1 for every 1000 or more who is there purely for the science and doesn't care about prestige or reward.
2- Those "bad scientists" do the bulk of the work.
Major scientific advances are usually made by thousands gathering data and all, then one genius making a discovery then thousands filling up the details and fine-tuning the resulting equation or theory.

The bad scientists don't do any of the work. They usually aim to be professors and directors, not researchers. The people you see doing long hours of research and effort at NASA or whatever are there for their field not because they want money.

Also the first point depends on the field. There's alot more engineers out there for the money than there are sociologists or biologists. You don't become a complexity scientist for the money.

How will it be free or cheaper when everything is slower and harder to produce?
If the supply is down, the price goes way up.
These mass production networks are what makes things cheap, and your model doesn't produce these highly complex fine tunned mass production networks.

Why would supply suddenly go down? Why would my model not produce mass production networks.

More specifically, explain why mass production networks need to hierarchial or have to have organizers without using buzzwords like "order" or "organization".

And as said before, 10s of thousands of scientists fine tunned their work and turned it from writing on a paper to actual technologies that benefit everyone.

If you want just those wonder geniuses, then you wont get any technology, you'll just get lots of papers talking about potential technologies.

Read above.

Almost every technology that we have today, including these computers and cellphones and everything, was directed, funded, and pushed for by states. And to be even more specific, it was done by states developing military technology that simply turned out useful in civilian industries as well.

Heck, if you traced back the Iphone where every technology in it came from, pretty much all of them were made during the cold war for the purpose of nuclear warfare.

And yet, regardless of how many screaming idiots there are on either side, those fundings done by the state in the military and in NASA gave rise to every aspect of modern consumer products through the technologies it developed.

While I know exactly what book you got this from, and it's a good book btw, only very recent technologies were pioneered by states. Airplanes, electricity, trains, washing machines, telephones, etc. were all made by individuals not states.

And I would go so far as to say even the technologies you listed were actually made by individuals not states.

Rewards for scientists.

See above.

Because almost no one would do it, and even when someone does, all this person would do is produce scientific papers that pretty much no one (engineers) would turn it into functional technology.
Instead of having a new technology every few days, we'd be having a new technology every few years or even decades.

Why would no one do it?

Because those things (advanced science and technology) requires massive funding to materialize.
Not a few thousands of dollars, but a few 100s of millions or even billions of dollars of investment and funding for it to go through.
If you remove a centralized entity with the capacity to gather and devote such funding, then you won't have these advancements.

There's already entities willing to give major amounts of resources and put major effort into science without the need for middlemen.

Assumptions based on logical conclusions from abolishing the state and the things you propose.

None of them are logical and are usually based on things I didn't even say.

Anarchism isn't just "get rid of the state and capitalism and then you're done". No. It's about other things too.

Actually, people choose what topic they want to do their research on.
The major funding usually comes after they formulated and completed their initial research.
And after they complete their initial research, they can either pursue private funding to expand on it or do further research or can pursue government grants (most do this) to fund it, which usually has very little restrictions.

Depends on your position. There's a reason why even good US and Chinese scientists fake research.

There won't be any strings attached because there wont be any funding to be given.

See? Making assumptions. There would be funding. Who said there wouldn't be.

So people would come together to form production networks, to produce extremely expensive equipment, then give it away to a union or federation of scientists who wishes to do any random experiment which may or may not lead to results, and even if it did, it would probably take several years for these results to turn into technology. (since the scientific basis and the technological development are two different processes) And all of that will be done without any organizers or central direction.

Changed the parts that were wrong. In short, yes. It's not that different from the current system.

And you don't see how much of a fantasy that looks like?

It's very similar to how things work now.

Ok, so they're messengers who would go back and forth between different people or groups of people in a process similar to negotiations I assume?

They aren't necessarily negotiating, just coordinating their actions.

So before every piece of road or stretch of wiring is built, there needs to be an entire process of negotiations that may or may not lead to agreement.
And this is just roads and basic electrical and water pipes. We haven't even begun talking about the internet, satellites (the ones in orbit BTW), cell coverage, phone lines, etc.

I never said that. If it's something major like a nuclear plant that would dump waste into a village's river, yeah you have to negotiate but something like building a bridge is pretty simple.

But you run into the same problem again. If there is no enforcement mechanism, then some people will choose not to participate knowing they'll get the benefits regardless.
Then you'll end up with a game theory dilemma.

No one has to put effort into the education system. People/places would offer classes or education programs and someone would write down a list of all of them in the area.

There's no funding here.

Except what you're describing is a "system" with no central authority, no organization and even when there is organization it'd be based on prolonged negotiations between people (which, considering the number of people there is it'd take forever for a middle ground to be reached), no laws or law enforcement, no complex production networks, etc.

No. Not really expect for the no laws part.

It's in the name, anarchy. A stateless, orderless, society.
The state isn't always oppressive, states aren't all the same, there are different systems of governance, different types of states, etc.

The etymology of the name is two words "an", the Greek word for "without" and "arkhos", the Greek word for "ruler".

It's in the name but what you're saying here is not it.

[/quote]
Definition of Anarchy:


>>State of disorder<<[/quote]

https://www.google.com/search?q=etymolo ... e&ie=UTF-8

[ingliz]

why mass production networks need to hierarchial or have to have organizers.

An example:

Here is a list of the various parts of the valve gear for just one cylinder in a typical car engine that have to be cast/forged, machined and shrunk/ assembled together, some 88 parts in all.

Parts for valve mechanism for one cylinder:-

4 Valves

4 “ seats

4 “ guides

4 “ springs - outer

4 “ “ - inner

4 “ “ seats

4 “ “ caps/retainers

8 “ “ “ keys/collets/keepers

4 “ seals

4 “ rocker arms

4 “ “ “ pivots/bearings

4 “ “ “ cam lobe rollers

4 “ “ “ journals/shafts

8 “ circlips/retainers

4 Hydraulic lash adjuster bodies/cylinders

4 “ “ “ pistons

4 “ “ “ springs

4 “ “ “ check balls/valves

4 “ “ “ “ “ housings

4 Cam lobes

That is 88 separate parts for one cylinder and does not include the cylinder head, spark plug or any fasteners, camshaft bearings or cam drive mechanism.

And all this has to be delivered in sequence for JIT manufacturing.

If you doubt me, ask @anasawad.

[Palmyrene]

An example:

Here is a list of the various parts of the valve gear for just one cylinder in a typical car engine that have to be cast/forged, machined and shrunk/ assembled together, some 88 parts in all.

Parts for valve mechanism for one cylinder:-

4 Valves

4 “ seats

4 “ guides

4 “ springs - outer

4 “ “ - inner

4 “ “ seats

4 “ “ caps/retainers

8 “ “ “ keys/collets/keepers

4 “ seals

4 “ rocker arms

4 “ “ “ pivots/bearings

4 “ “ “ cam lobe rollers

4 “ “ “ journals/shafts

8 “ circlips/retainers

4 Hydraulic lash adjuster bodies/cylinders

4 “ “ “ pistons

4 “ “ “ springs

4 “ “ “ check balls/valves

4 “ “ “ “ “ housings

4 Cam lobes

That is 88 separate parts for one cylinder and does not include the cylinder head, spark plug or any fasteners, camshaft bearings or cam drive mechanism.

And all this has to be delivered in sequence for JIT manufacturing.

If you doubt me, ask @anasawad.

That didn't answer the question.

Exactly why does this process have to be done hierarchially? If the factory workers know where they need to transport the goods, then it's not necessary for someone to organize it.

[ingliz]

If the factory workers know where they need to transport the goods

How would they know when (production management) to transport the goods?

[Palmyrene]

How would they know when (production management) to transport the goods?

The people that want the goods would tell them they need it for a specific reason as well as when they need it.

Generally in a post-revolutionary anarchist society, the existing networks pre-revolution would still function post-revolution.

The only difference would be that the middleman would be gone.

[ingliz]

People

It is plain for all to see you have never worked in a factory.

the existing networks pre-revolution would still function post-revolution.

How? When you have done away with production management, the middlemen. Your typical factory worker isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

[Palmyrene]

It is plain for all to see you have never worked in a factory.

What? Do you prefer me to use the term "workers"? Or are you trying to convince me that factory workers need someone to whip them and tell them what to do?

How when you have done away with production management (the middlemen)? Your typical factory worker isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

The typical worker and the workers in the factory know what's expected of them. They know where they have to transport goods, how much goods they need to produce, what needs to be done to produce them, and how much time it'll take.

Just like farmers. Farmers may be dumb but you bet your ass they know how to farm better than a manager who has never done farming can and they are qualified to know what needs to be done and what they require.

Honestly you're hitting all the typical qualities of a Marxist-Leninist. Complete utter contempt of the working class and an enflated sense of self importance which manifests in the notion of the vanguard.

[ingliz]

The typical worker and the workers in the factory know what's expected of them.

I am sorry but that is complete bollocks and I speak from experience.

[Palmyrene]

I am sorry but that is complete bollocks and I speak from experience.

They do. Just because they are compliant in just following orders doesn't mean they're dumb or stupid.

[ingliz]

They do.

They don't.

I will give you an example of "the workers in the factory know what's expected of them."

I was working in a foundry making engine blocks, gear box housings, brake drums, etc. The production schedule demanded bus brake drums. But the workers feeding the furnace were not metallurgists and nobody told them not to put scrap rail cushions in the mix.

Result: Dead people - The brake drums cracked and a bus fell off a mountain.

[Palmyrene]

They don't.

I will give you an example of "the workers in the factory know what's expected of them."

I was working in a foundry making engine blocks, gear box housings, brake drums, etc. The production schedule demanded bus brake drums. But the workers feeding the furnace were not metallurgists and nobody told them not to put scrap rail cushions in the mix.

Result: Dead people - The brake drums cracked and a bus fell off a mountain.

That seems like an issue of giving the wrong job to the wrong people.

In an anarchist society, metallurgists would deal with metallurgy and engineers would work engines or whatever.

No one would be forced to do a job they aren't qualified for just to save costs.