Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The absence of rules is anarchic, but not democratic. In anarchy, the powerful coerce, manipulate, and otherwise dominate the masses, creating a status quo that the powerful desire, and abusing the weak without restraint. Historically, the outcome is despots, warlords, feudalism, and brutality. In democracy everyone has an equal vote and equal rights, and it requires a system of rules.

Many had the same hopes for the Internet and social media, for example. But when these things became valuable - influential - powerful interests acted to control and manipulate them, to obtain money, political power and social outcomes. It's hard to claim that the results are that people are choosing information that is "the best or most useful".

I think politics and social outcomes, such as status quos, are unavoidable results of human interaction. Eliminating rules eliminates the protection against arbitrary power and returns us to the world of despots. The politics is unavoidable; the question is, how do we want to manage it?

EDIT: Some major edits; sorry if you read an earlier version.




Fwiw, modern anarchism tends to emphasize consensus decision making and building strong process; the Greek root after all is "without leaders," not "without rules."

Modern democracy, with its focus on leaders and representation, still gives us extreme power and economic imbalances and is arguably a barely disguised oligarchy.

I think we agree that getting rid of all the rules is a bad thing, though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: