The Dating Market: Anarchy in Action

I despise the made-up rules of dating. Why would anyone want anything else to be like that?

Monkey said:

I disagree.

The point I'm making is that the same dynamic exists in the basic dating or family unit as does in the larger societal unit. "Centralized" authority either exists in both or does not exist in either, depending on how you define "centralized," but in either case, the dynamic is the same and only the numbers of people involved is different.

Click to expand...

Well, "centralized authority" is a pretty broadly understood term, and based on that understanding, it doesn't exist in a two-person relationship.

That doesn't mean there aren't rules and power relationships (see Foucault, etc.) but how is it "centralized authority"?

But, okay, if you're defining the term differently, that's definitely where our disagreement is coming from. I understand.

Captcha said:

Well, "centralized authority" is a pretty broadly understood term, and based on that understanding, it doesn't exist in a two-person relationship.

That doesn't mean there aren't rules and power relationships (see Foucault, etc.) but how is it "centralized authority"?

But, okay, if you're defining the term differently, that's definitely where our disagreement is coming from. I understand.

Click to expand...

Centralized: To bring under a single, central authority
Authority:the power to give orders or make decisions

You don't get more centralized than one person.

When you have millions of people, one department will have authority over some things - other departments, branches, committees, ect, will have authority over others. It's not just one person, it's not just one branch, it's not just one division. But each division has "centralized" authority over the specific things directly under its purview, and allow the others to manage the things over their own purviews, although there is often considerable inter-departmental co-operation.

This is, in fact, less true to the definition of "centralized" than in a relationship where one person can have direct and complete authority over an issue every time it comes up, even if the issues involved are trivial.

If you have just two or so people, you have the same sort of divisions as we do in our government, but it's on the smallest scale possible. You will have one person who is the the authority on one thing, another who is the authority on another. And you may even have some "inter-departmental cooperation," but you'll still have someone in charge of the different things that need to happen.

Don said:

The claim that "structure and organization, when done on the level of thousands or millions of people instead of just two or so, is what a government *is*" falls far short of reality. That would make the Red Cross, General Motors, and the International Star Trek Fan Club governments.

Click to expand...

General Motors, the Red Cross... pretty much any human organization will have rules, and will use coercive force to enforce those rules as necessary. I'd be willing to bet you can be physically expelled from the GM building by security (legitimate coercion); hell, I'd bet money that certain employees, upon being terminated against their will, are physically escorted out of the building by security, and should they fight, police will be called right quick like. They are also fairly centralized, generally having a board of directors/president/CEO type set-up.

I know nothing about the Star Trek fan club, but if it has a government, it probably has rules. If it has rules, it probably has enforcement and agreements (contracts.) If someone has entered into a contract, they are not free to walk away unless the terms of such are met. Sort of like I, personally, could walk away from the US government and go live somewhere else, if I wanted to, because I'm not currently facing any dispute over contract or law or whatnot.

The difference between these governing bodies and the national government is, again, one of scale and purview. But the general structure remains the same. Why do you think Fan Clubs and businesses have the title of "President," "Vice President,' and so on?

Don said:

Government is distinguished solely by it's power of "legitimate" coercion.

Click to expand...

By this definition, every parent is a government unto themselves.

If you can't force people to do things against their will and take their possessions for the "greater good", you're not a government, you're a free association, and people can walk away from your rules if they choose to do so.

Click to expand...

Tell that to intellectual property lawyers. And again - parents, for that matter. Tell that to anyone who has ever signed a credit card contract. There are plenty of people and organizations that are not governments who can force people to comply, and not allow people to simply say, "Fuck you and your rules, I'm out."

And to bring it full circle, two people who are dating may also not be free to simply walk away; if they have property, pets, and/or children in common, they may well be required to go through some legally-binding hoobla before they can part ways even with the property they brought in. Even if the entire "dating relationship" consisted of one wild night... if the girl got knocked up or the guy caught AIDS and it turns out the woman knew she was a carrier, just walking away and claiming "free association" is likely to not cut it.

So... are things like men killing women for not dating them an example of success of failure of anarchy?

Captcha said:

So, yeah, a couple will organize chores or whatever for themselves. Humans are capable of doing this. We don't need the government to tell us how.

Given that it's Don posting this article, I assume we should now expand this discovery to most other aspects of human endeavour. Humans can organize themselves. We don't need the government to tell us how to raise our kids or educate people or make sure that everyone in society has food and medical care and shelter, and we don't need governments to regulate our trade, etc.

Click to expand...

Yep, we should form our own group and our own rules for division of labor and responsibilities, for group protection, for sharing of assets (or non-sharing, depending)... What shall we call this new thing. Oh, I know. Let's call it a GOVERNMENT!!!!!

Anarchy consists of people running around with guns shooting at each other (or rocks, or spears... don't get all lawyerish). The moment you have two people standing back to back and cooperating, you no longer have anarchy - at least locally. You have some form of archy. (haha). You can say "oh, it's different because it's voluntary," but guess what? At some point someone will disagree with something and refuse to go along with it. what then? Thrown them out? That's a guvmint-style decision. Punishment? Same comment. People who say they don't want government, IMO are either A) morons or B) really saying they don't want this government, they want one where they get what they want.

Now, how much government we should have, that's an entirely different question. And a sensible one.

Angry Guy said:

Yep, we should form our own group and our own rules for division of labor and responsibilities, for group protection, for sharing of assets (or non-sharing, depending)... What shall we call this new thing. Oh, I know. Let's call it a GOVERNMENT!!!!!

Anarchy consists of people running around with guns shooting at each other (or rocks, or spears... don't get all lawyerish). The moment you have two people standing back to back and cooperating, you no longer have anarchy - at least locally. You have some form of archy. (haha). You can say "oh, it's different because it's voluntary," but guess what? At some point someone will disagree with something and refuse to go along with it. what then? Thrown them out? That's a guvmint-style decision. Punishment? Same comment. People who say they don't want government, IMO are either A) morons or B) really saying they don't want this government, they want one where they get what they want.

Now, how much government we should have, that's an entirely different question. And a sensible one.

Click to expand...

That's not the definition of anarchy, which simply means, NO LEADERS...not no rules...

Diana Hignutt said:

That's not the definition of anarchy, which simply means, NO LEADERS...not no rules...

Click to expand...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

an-ar-chy

- a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
- absence of government
- a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
- a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
- absence or denial of any authority or established order

Don said:

The ruling class tries to conflate the two with some huge assumptions so they can hijack the meaning. Note the "common usage" qualifier from Google, after the explanation of the root meaning of the word.

Click to expand...

Oh please. Attacking the definition of a word because it is called "common usage" is equivalent to attacking our understanding of evolution because it is called a "theory."

The meanings of words change and morph over time. In a given contemporary discussion, unless there is unilateral agreement otherwise, we assume everyone means a word's "common usage" rather than its etymology.

Now, I understand that you are saying that chaos does not, in fact, spring up from a lack of leaders. I have been game, and have been discussing this utopian ideal rather than using the common usage of anarchy.

But we've been through this before. I asked you to show me ANY longstanding society ANYWHERE, ANY time in human history, that had more than a few thousand people and lasted more than about a hundred years, that did not have leaders.

Can't do it.

I've asked you to show me even a smaller group of like-minded people who are freely associating and have established and maintained - for something more than a generation or two - a working, peaceful, and truly free society without rules enforced by legitimate coercion.

Can't do it.

You talk about:

Been to a flea market or farmer's market lately? A yard sale? A community garden?

Click to expand...

as if these are anarchy. I call bullshit. My grandfather used to make his living at flea markets. There are leaders, and you must pay them your fees for your booth. You are told where you can set up, in what size area, and often what your booth can/cannot/must consist of as far as awnings, tables, ect.

The organizers of each separate event set their own rules, subject only to the broad restrictions on gatherings in general that have been handed down by our wise and benevolent overlords.

Click to expand...

Yes. In addition to state and federal laws, the organizers put in place ADDITIONAL rules. Whatever additional rules they want.

TRUE ANARCHY.

You have an EXTREMELY limited, to the point of being useless, definition of anarchy if it includes situations where people are free to impose extra rules, or garage sales where a handful of people interact for a few hours on one of the people's front lawns, completely bound by the current government's rule of law, negotiating prices on used items but still, in the end, also completely bound by the decision of the person who decided to hold the yard sale.

There's a reason why most plausible ideas for anarchy I've found all take place in a hypothetical future where we've moved past scarcity and have lots of robots to do boring jobs.

Monkey said:

Oh please. Attacking the definition of a word because it is called "common usage" is equivalent to attacking our understanding of evolution because it is called a "theory."

The meanings of words change and morph over time. In a given contemporary discussion, unless there is unilateral agreement otherwise, we assume everyone means a word's "common usage" rather than its etymology.

Now, I understand that you are saying that chaos does not, in fact, spring up from a lack of leaders. I have been game, and have been discussing this utopian ideal rather than using the common usage of anarchy.

But we've been through this before. I asked you to show me ANY longstanding society ANYWHERE, ANY time in human history, that had more than a few thousand people and lasted more than about a hundred years, that did not have leaders.

Can't do it.

I've asked you to show me even a smaller group of like-minded people who are freely associating and have established and maintained - for something more than a generation or two - a working, peaceful, and truly free society without rules enforced by legitimate coercion.

Can't do it.

You talk about:

as if these are anarchy. I call bullshit. My grandfather used to make his living at flea markets. There are leaders, and you must pay them your fees for your booth. You are told where you can set up, in what size area, and often what your booth can/cannot/must consist of as far as awnings, tables, ect.

Yes. In addition to state and federal laws, the organizers put in place ADDITIONAL rules. Whatever additional rules they want.

TRUE ANARCHY.

You have an EXTREMELY limited, to the point of being useless, definition of anarchy if it includes situations where people are free to impose extra rules, or garage sales where a handful of people interact for a few hours on one of the people's front lawns, completely bound by the current government's rule of law, negotiating prices on used items but still, in the end, also completely bound by the decision of the person who decided to hold the yard sale.

Click to expand...

Anarchy does not mean no rules...it means no rulers...there is an important difference.

Diana Hignutt said:

Anarchy does not mean no rules...it means no rulers...there is an important difference.

Click to expand...

But who enforces those rules and safegaurds them when someone in the community does not want to follow the agreed upon rules? Some sort of rudimentary leader or wise-person in ancient times is what was common, or a group of people. Those people by deffinition become leaders of their people. Humans gravitate towards leadership as a means of securing their futures and keeping things stable, not that it works 100% of the time. But I bet the person saying they completely want to do away with all government are happy that someone has the authority to put a murder, rapist, baterer, thief, or any other type of criminal in prison where they are less able to harm society as a whole.

As for dating, I don't think of it as anarchy in the least. The two people or however many agree on the rules and if the others don't follow through in some way then people are free to leave. Is it one of the ways anarchy can be defined? Yes, yes it is. But the important thing isn't that it is one of the deffinitions of anarchy, but that it is not the one of which the vast majority of people think. What is defined as anarchy isn't defined by one of the less common definitions but by the most common.

Celia Cyanide said:

I despise the made-up rules of dating. Why would anyone want anything else to be like that?

Click to expand...

Why do you despise them? I dislike some of the general rules like dating or marriage should only include two people, because I think they're absolute bull. If a person can form romantic attachment to multiple people, and ALL parties agree then it's fine. If someone makes something think they're their only partner when in truth they aren't that's not ok and not a true poly relationship.

But the other rules of dating are not things I think of as actual rules so much as they are guidelines and common sense. Treating your partner(s) with respect, being open about what you want out of the relationship etc.

I was always told it was polite to believe that people's beliefs are what they say they are, and my belief has meant the same thing since the term was coined by the ancient Greeks. Does it also have other, more modern meanings? Yes. But, as an anarchist, I reserve the right to believe the definition to be what I believe it to be...in regards to political anarchism. Thank you for respecting my beliefs. Now, I'll ask that there not be a No True Scotsman fallacy to follow this up. Thank you.

Lillith1991 said:

As for dating, I don't think of it as anarchy in the least. The two people or however many agree on the rules and if the others don't follow through in some way then people are free to leave. Is it one of the ways anarchy can be defined? Yes, yes it is. But the important thing isn't that it is one of the deffinitions of anarchy, but that it is not the one of which the vast majority of people think. What is defined as anarchy isn't defined by one of the less common definitions but by the most common.

Click to expand...

Okay, but it's been clarified in this thread that it IS the more technical, less common definition that's being used. It's the definition that would be used in discussions of political philosophy, which, despite the 'dating' hook, this clearly is. So, once the initial confusion has been resolved - you're saying you STILL don't think there's any use for the word?

What word would you suggest people use if they want to discuss a political concept that's been around since ancient Greece?

Lillith1991 said:

Why do you despise them? I dislike some of the general rules like dating or marriage should only include two people, because I think they're absolute bull. If a person can form romantic attachment to multiple people, and ALL parties agree then it's fine. If someone makes something think they're their only partner when in truth they aren't that's not ok and not a true poly relationship.

But the other rules of dating are not things I think of as actual rules so much as they are guidelines and common sense. Treating your partner(s) with respect, being open about what you want out of the relationship etc.

Click to expand...

When you are out on a date with someone and you don't like them, it's considered acceptable to excuse yourself and go to the ladies room and never come back. That's just rude. Shit like that. It's stupid.

Celia Cyanide said:

When you are out on a date with someone and you don't like them, it's considered acceptable to excuse yourself and go to the ladies room and never come back. That's just rude. Shit like that. It's stupid.

Click to expand...

Well, there's a tricky point, b/c I would say that ISN'T one of the rules of dating, not without extenuating circumstances. I can only see that being acceptable if the person in the bathroom felt threatened or otherwise unsafe about openly asserting that she'd be leaving.

So maybe this is one of the tricks of a system without central authority? It's hard to know what the 'rules' are if they aren't written down or otherwise publicly declared.

I think the best repudiation of anarchy as a political stance happened during a demonstration at the Peace Arch a number of years ago. The news of course was soliciting opinions from people, and a group of young skateboarders were going on about "The Man", and "Rules", and proclaiming themselves to be anarchists. In their case, IIRC it was focused around the tendency of municipalities to pass bylaws about skateboarding.

It created a discussion where I happened to be, when one of the other people in the room made some kind of "fuck yeah" comment. "Skate wherever the hell we want, man!" (I'm paraphrasing. This was years ago)

Someone else responded, "So you actually think anarchy would mean you can skate wherever you want? Anarchy would mean you couldn't skate anywhere, moron. No rules for you also means no rules for the people who don't like you. It means the first time you cut in front of a car, the driver will just run you over. It means the first time you grind a planter outside a building, four big guys with shotguns will come out and blow your kneecaps off."

The point (yes, there's a point. I'm not drooling out of one side of my mouth) is that people who advocate anarchy generally haven't thought it through and are just complaining about some rule they don't like; or are the type of people who think that in a true anarchy, they'd be the ones holding the whips.

I frankly don't care to take political advice from either group.

Angry Guy said:

I think the best repudiation of anarchy as a political stance happened during a demonstration at the Peace Arch a number of years ago. The news of course was soliciting opinions from people, and a group of young skateboarders were going on about "The Man", and "Rules", and proclaiming themselves to be anarchists. In their case, IIRC it was focused around the tendency of municipalities to pass bylaws about skateboarding.

It created a discussion where I happened to be, when one of the other people in the room made some kind of "fuck yeah" comment. "Skate wherever the hell we want, man!" (I'm paraphrasing. This was years ago)

Someone else responded, "So you actually think anarchy would mean you can skate wherever you want? Anarchy would mean you couldn't skate anywhere, moron. No rules for you also means no rules for the people who don't like you. It means the first time you cut in front of a car, the driver will just run you over. It means the first time you grind a planter outside a building, four big guys with shotguns will come out and blow your kneecaps off."

The point (yes, there's a point. I'm not drooling out of one side of my mouth) is that people who advocate anarchy generally haven't thought it through and are just complaining about some rule they don't like; or are the type of people who think that in a true anarchy, they'd be the ones holding the whips.

I frankly don't care to take political advice from either group.

Click to expand...

Or maybe, who knows Political Anarchists aren't stupid skakeboarders or would be vigilantes, just maybe, they are people involved in deep discussions and meditations on the ancient political philosophy of not having ruling authorities...

Captcha said:

Well, there's a tricky point, b/c I would say that ISN'T one of the rules of dating, not without extenuating circumstances. I can only see that being acceptable if the person in the bathroom felt threatened or otherwise unsafe about openly asserting that she'd be leaving.

Click to expand...

It is acceptable, though. Maybe not to you, but it happens all the time. People don't want to break up with people face to face, and they aren't going to do it if they aren't actually "with" someone enough to be obligated to do so. So they ditch them.

It's not acceptable to me either, which is why I despise it. I don't know why Lilith went into poly relationships, but yeah, rules of dating are stupid.

Celia Cyanide said:

It is acceptable, though. Maybe not to you, but it happens all the time. People don't want to break up with people face to face, and they aren't going to do it if they aren't actually "with" someone enough to be obligated to do so. So they ditch them.

It's not acceptable to me either, which is why I despise it. I don't know why Lilith went into poly relationships, but yeah, rules of dating are stupid.

Click to expand...

Because it is seen as a given , a relationship in the romantic sense contains two parties and no more whether dating or marriage by the vast majority of society. I think that is a idiotic rule to say the least, to me the most idiotic rule of all.

Lillith1991 said:

Because it is seen as a given , a relationship in the romantic sense contains two parties and no more whether dating or marriage by the vast majority of society. I think that is a idiotic rule to say the least, to me the most idiotic rule of all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is. So do you begin to see why I would despise such rules?