Back

Iustum. Depending on what you mean by "anarchist," that might be disagreeable since I think the state is necessary to a degree to modern-day structures of nations. However, in isolation to the current day, I would agree with anarchist ideas.

Ferbalot. I agree that the state is necessary to modern-day structures of nations. It might be inaccurate for me to call myself an anarchist, I did so because I tentatively advocate for anarchism after (and if) the majority of humans are significantly more rational than what we have now.

Iust. I am saying that the transition to anarchism would significantly cause more harm due to a loss of modern-day structures for anarchism to ideally succeed. I think anarchism only works on a small scale; everything today is so interconnected that it would cause mass harm to humanity that it would not be worth it.

Ferb. I don't think a loss of modern-day structures would be necessary for anarchism to ideally succeed. I think anarchism could work on a large scale and that things could stay very interconnected and that it wouldn't have to cause mass harm to humanity. All of this strictly because I think the large increase in rationality would have massive effects on the dynamics that would ordinarily make all the things you said true. I don't think chaos and power vacuums would necessarily exist like they otherwise would.

Iust. When you talk about anarchism, you are reasoning from an idealized state of humanity. When you say: If virtually all humanity is rational enough, then an anarchist society would be able to materialize without harm. That proposition is true. However, the question is then, to what degree and consistency can humanity be rational enough for that society to materialize without harm? Then, there needs to be a judgment of the impossibility of that degree and consistency of rationality in the future. Can you establish that the antecedent is not an impossible state of humanity in the future?

Ferb. You are correct that I am reasoning from an idealized state of humanity. I think it's plausible that we can reach that state by changing education systems to include proper classes on practical epistemology, cognitive biases and things of that nature. Because it seems like irrationality comes from a lack of good habits in that area, and a lot of practice (especially at a young age) in that area should form the necessary habits to avoid the vast majority of mistakes. And at the very least people should remain fundamentally open minded enough to consistently admit when they're wrong about virtually anything when it's pointed out very clearly. I believe this should provide the necessary degree of rationality, and I think it's plausible that we can change education systems around the world in that way. Because once it is demonstrated how rational these people are in one country, I think it will gradually spread.

Iust. I probably have a higher bar of rationality for transitioning from globalized modern societies to anarchism. It is hard to discuss since there is nothing concrete but an abstract concept of rationality; we do not have historical examples or ways to use applicable studies. What do you think?

[12-Day Delay]

Ferb. I largely agree. My anarchist claim is largely dependent on a more theoretical inductive argument rather than one with something like historical examples. My argument is reliant on claims about how rationality works and how it can be taught. I consider this to be sufficiently concrete for a decent argument once the premises are understood, but it is much more theoretical.

Iust. What exactly is this inductive argument?

Ferb. My inductive argument for anarchism has too much to it for me to explain it all at once, but I already gave the broad overview in the "You are correct that I am reasoning from an idealized state of humanity" message. Which part(s) of it would you like me to expand on?

Iust. Sure, how rational do people have to be in this anarchist society? I think that question is essential to your reasoning.

Ferb. I think at least ~9/10 people have to be around the level of rationality that (very roughly) ~1/50,000 people are currently capable of, if we take "rationality" to be largely based on open mindedness and to a lesser extent criticalness. They need to be capable of consistent basic reasoning and have good habits about trying to understand positions they disagree with (even when it's emotionally difficult) in-depth. After that I believe it's only a matter of time before important true beliefs are virtually always accepted (and impactful false beliefs virtually always rejected).

Iust. Rationality, which includes habitual open-mindedness, critical thinking, basic consistent reasoning, practical epistemology, and understanding cognitive biases, would prevent power vacuums. May you connect rationality with the prevention of power vacuums?

Ferb. Let's say we achieve a world where everyone is rational. I know this isn't realistic in the near future, but in this case I tentatively think it's best to start out with a relatively simple hypothetical first. I believe that without moral/axiological presuppositions, axiological and moral nihilism would be discovered by many and adopted by basically everyone as the arguments were shared with others. In my opinion this leaves a few main plausible outcomes for how things proceed: The vast majority of people accept moral and axiological nihilism and default to pretty much following their emotional whims. The vast majority of people presuppose utilitarianism, because I believe it to be the most intuitive (to very rational people, on average) ethical framework. The vast majority of people presuppose axiological hedonism, because I believe it to be the most intuitive (to very rational people, on average) axiological framework due to motivational hedonism and the intuition that what is valuable to us is correlated with what fundamentally motivates us. Some mix of the above. But I think this is much less likely because the ideas' intuitions/logic seem incompatible. With any of these results, I think that much more efficient methods of thinking/knowledge distribution would become common-place, leading to everyone believing in a much better ratio of true beliefs/false beliefs on everything, but especially about soft sciences. Because of this, I think figures in power would almost universally be treated skeptically and with the belief that decentralized systems tend to be safer and better for the people under them, as well as an understanding of (and means to avoid) the irrational appeal of charisma, emotional manipulation, narcissism, arrogance, etc. So leaders would have to be much more rational and provide much more evidence that they will work for the benefit of people, otherwise they would not be able to stay in power. And leaders would also often be seen as unnecessary.

Iust. When people are in positions of power, they are held accountable to the people. However, people's ability to hold leaders accountable is unreliable when they are not rational. When rational, they maintain the same moral framework and increase true beliefs to judge leaders accurately, meaning they can hold them accountable. Part of being held accountable is high skepticism toward leaders, meaning a higher decentralized system. The result is that leaders can never gain the power to the point that it is abusable, meaning there are no power vacuums. Is that correct?

Ferb. You're nearly right about the power vacuum paragraph, the only wrong part is the "meaning there are no power vacuums". I think there would still occasionally be some minor temporary power vacuums, but I believe all such cases would be solved whenever they start to become a substantial problem. Because problem-solving abilities/knowledge and sufficient knowledge about power vacuums would be extremely wide-spread in my opinion.

Iust. All right, and do you think some people will always be resourcefully superior to others?

Ferb. Yes, I think (at least unless we achieve pleasure cubes or something) it will always be the case that some people are resourcefully superior to others.

Iust. What I mean by "resourcefully superior" is the use of resources to establish superordinate positions with other groups via violence, not resources that allow some people to achieve more pleasure than others. Could you answer the question again?

Ferb. I was using that definition as well, my answer would be the same. The reason I brought up pleasure cubes is because I think they are a semi-plausible way in which humans could realistically achieve that kind of resourceful equality.

[22-Day Delay]

Iust. Ah okay. So, roughly 90%, at the very least, is necessary for this kind of society to manifest. However, that 10% or even lower is still numerically a large number of people. Is it reasonably likely that a large population making up a majority of that 10% kind were to have superior resources?