Well put.

Furthering this line of thought... Anarchy = Actual democracy.

The real conspiracy is how the term 'anarchy' has become synonymous with 'chaos'

Or mob rule depends on who you ask. I think there's a fine balance between totalitarianism and anarchy. Anarchy only works when there is a common purpose, modern American society has 300+ million purposes.

Anarchy=lack of government. That's it. It doesn't mean we discard morals and ethics.

Anarchy also = everyone is an equal member of government

Who gets to decide which morals & ethics to follow? Africa had a lack of government & was selling their own fucking people to white europeans who made them slaves. That is what anarchy looks like. Anarchists believe in equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Fuck that.

Have you ever considered that when the slave masters roamed Africa - or specific areas not the largest continent on the planet- that they may have threatened certain groups so as to instill fear and have them do their dirty work? That is, go capture your neighbors or we will take you by force. And here are some weapons to do that. Then you go to their neighbors and sell them weapons for defence and strike deals with them. This hasn't changed much in 500 years.

i think morals and ethics falls on the ground of common sense where its not a clear cut line on the ground but an ever evolving tolerance level of acceptance within a culture.

If only all people were the same, had the same culture and same "common" sense. Your common is not my common.

Anarchy is Stockholm syndrome.

society's own unchecked self indulgences with no brakes

What’s the difference between that and what we are witnessing the elite rich do with capitalism?

I would disagree with the idea that us lowly plebs need a state to reel us in.

Maybe I need to repeat myself for you. Anarchy is Stockholm syndrome.

not sure if III knows what it is... maybe he meant down syndrome?

What is this shill trash?

whats your problem incel?

Removed. Rule 4.

Anarchy can exist with a system of "true community policing", and though a individual sovereignty of the citizenship or anarcho monarchism.

Because as we all know community policing works great - like when mobs lynched blacks in the south.

A society can exist without a sovereign but it cannot without societal norms, a system of morality, and a loose legal framework to protect contractual agreements and property rights.

And who enforces those contractual agreements and property rights when there's an interpretive disagreement? And who write the legal framework?

So what, they just vote? Just sounds like direct democracy.

On whose interpretation of the legal framework is correct when two people have a disagreement.

Okay and who decides who gets to be a judge?

Who decides what the merit qualifications are and who has satisfied them?

You're dodging the question - how do they decide who writes the standards and who get to choose who has satisfied them?

Let's make this concrete - you live in a town of 1,000 people. Who gets to choose who will be a judge?

You're dodging the question repeatedly. When you say "choose", what does that mean in practice? In a town of 1,000 people, when they "choose" who will be a judge, what does that process look like?

Who sets the rules of the competition? And don't say "the community". How does the community set the rules? What is the process?

The fact that you continue to be as vague as possible demonstrates how impractical this all is.

This conversation wasn't about my preferred ideology. Stop trying to distract from the fact that you have ignored the details.

We can't have a level conversation unless we both know a bit about each other.

Oh we could totally do that - you just don't want to because you don't want to admit that your idea only makes sense in the abstract and not in the real world.

So I'm not allowed to be vague but your allowed to keep your position to yourself.

So you're allowed to say some is being vague but they can't say the same thing about you?

I know you like to be vague with your own opinions while being hyper critical of others, but I'm patient. I'll wait for you to expand on your ideas. - link

So... local governments?

Are you going to respond?

This had to be a troll.

fucking christ you are disagreeing with everyone and countering with the exact thing you disagreed with them on but by a different name.

Communities (local gov)

Merrity based community decision (voting)

Merrity based community decision (voting)

Not at all. This will be competitive, not elective.

wtf does that even mean, elective voting is competitive, that's its intrinsic nature

you can't control how people derive their merit, or even if they will consider it in when making a decision.

So you have a merit based decision, and no one, or just enough people, do not base their decision off of merit, this decision process ends up just being a farce

you seem to not care about how and what would be those standards.

dont ask him the hard questions and ruin his government ethics 101 course level of understanding

So you need judges for that to happen. That's a necessary component.

No but they are an essential component of many governments. I'm not seeing a distinction here between what we have currently and what you're proposing.

It's not the no laws part - it's the no government part. Judges and a judiciary system are a governmental body.

Do you have any other alternative?

Yeah...anything but anarchy lol.

did you hear about salem trials?

yes, becasuse they are "They are a community body in my system" "Do you have any other alternative?" sorry if reality does not count to you

They certainly act that way under today's system.

Correct, because they make their rulings based on statutory law, not common law.

Well at this point ruling in accord with statutory law is the judicial precedent.

yes, if you will give to they the authority to decide who's right or wrong

anarcho monarchist principals

can you explain this concept to me?

there is none about that, all the posts that came are from you and none of they is about "anarcho monarchist"
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=anarcho+monarchist&restrict_sr=on
acctualy they are all your posts

How is it anarchism if private property rights still exist? Just sounds like "anarcho"-capitalism.

Community policing worked great when it freed slaves against the state's mandate of their position as property.

And who enforces those contractual agreements and property rights when there's an interpretive disagreement?

Rather than treat things adverserially, enlist a volunteer arbiter to reach a mutually consentable reconciliation.

who write the legal framework?

Who needs to entomb societal norms in paper. Societal norms are fluid and changing. Enscribing them in stone only gets in the way of progress. The same goes for contracts imo. Enscription only serves to benefit the more or cunning tradesmen. It gives them an edge over the other. Promises of what an uncertain future holds are always lies. It's why some people refuse to swear to tell the truth in court and instead consent to affirm.

but without government wouldn't you lack resources like military, police, fire and EMS?

so the solution to trigger happy cops is giving an untrained and uneducated civilian a weapon? and who is going to set what is considered a "law" or will arrests be made just on personal interpretation of each individual's ethics and morals?....I don't think that getting rid of government is the smartest idea. even tribes in the Amazon have a form of hierarchy.

so each community can have different laws? seems like you would have to walk on eggshells. do you plan on educating your vetted officers on all laws? or just the ones you community votes on? how would you determine punishments? would you also pick out your judges or does the community get to pick an appropriate punishment.....by establishing some form of policing, you have already embodied a form of government which was what you were trying to avoid in the first place.

also another topic. let's say EMS. who is going to established guidelines and protocols for a scope of practice? or is each paramedic going to get to decide whatever treatment they feel is appropriate?

I sometimes wonder whether the Golden Rule was the only rule of the last Golden Age.

you must be one of those "soveirgn citizens" huh? you state that details are not important, but it's the details that make up the entire picture. that's like saying, "I'm going to build a car, but I have no idea on how to build an engine or do tapestry". you can't just throw radical ideas out there without expecting some serious questioning from your peers.

doesnt matter because in practice and in theory the results are never the same.

Theoretically I prefer centralized because we know it at least works in practice.

And even if I had believed theoretically decentralized would be better that doesn't mean shit if in practice it results in a horrible outcome.

There's a reason it has never happened successfully. In all the different times it was tried it has failed because the "community" you always speak of never does what you are saying they will in the face of someone or people trying to fill the power vacuum.

in theory I also prefer the existence of heaven. but chances are that it's not real

one could say it's the opposite of heaven as earth is the only place where you have to work for 60+ years of your life, you are constantly focused on the rat race and making ends meet instead of being able to enjoy the short time you are here.

yea because clearly this system gives everyone a choice right?

You're imagination is obviously tainted by authoritarianism. Get rid of the laws. Stop elevating a minority to the positions of police. Replace adversarial majority rule with consensual direct democracy. Replace punishment with rehabilitation and reconciliation...

We already have paramedics making such decisions. Thankfully we have an internet full of resources available to help them train to make better decisions.

no paramedic operates autonomously. every EMS agency has a set of standards operating procedures which are set in place by a medical director (usually an MD) a paramedic can only do interventions that the medical director approves of in specific situations.

uh main reason I like structure is because people like to do stupid shit when there is no supervision. usually what keeps people in check is rule of law. if there were no laws, repercussions are minimal. we are like small children who don't know any better but like to act like we know everything.

it doesn't lack structure because ultimately there are people making decisions for the masses, but it is less structured than a government.

There's always supervision. Except in centralized states where opacity prevents the masses from supervising their government. Like is happening all over the world today.

I think it's better to have all the children come together and discuss things until they can mutually consent to a set of laws than giving a few of the most unkind children the right to write laws and enforce them on thr whole classroom.

Do you actually obey all the laws? Lame.

that's a silly argument. there are over 10K laws in the books, there is no way anybody can abide by every single law.

I'm on board with having a direct democracy where every individual should vote on every law proposed. any individual who does not vote, should be reprimanded in some form that way there is an incentive to take part in these events.....but then again this is not anarchy

Ugh. Not voting in a direct democracy is enough of a punishment. I'd rather have apathetic assholes abstain than provide us with false ballots.

Glad to see we are on the same page, if only in description and not in name. What would you call it?

I think that the not voting mentality would become contagious, just like it is now. instead of people demanding a new democratic candidate, they resorted to not voting which is not the way to tackle such issue.

I feel that a short period of time in a pro-military camp would give people the incentive to vote. that way they can see what a true dictatorship feels like and why it is important for them to do their duties as a citizen.

umm I don't have a name yet. gotta work on that.

Except electing someone to make decisions for you goes violates free will.

Voting towards a group decision via consensus affirms free will.

I don't think force is necessary in the latter case and I don't think it's productive towards cultivating free will in either case.

I do feel like a good dose of oppression brings out the anarchist in most people.

I doubt you've even an amateur's knowledge of Amazonian tribal structures, but you make a good point - civilization is riddled with psychopathic assholes with varying degrees of moral bankruptcy. I personally would rather have a gun to defend myself against them than a police idiot.

I'm no expert in amazonia tribes, but I do know that there is a structure.....I think that cops should be required to have a 4 year degree with mandatory field internship, this way you can have more training when it comes to laws and high stress situations. cause right now, you can go to a community college for 9 months, pass your LE course and be able to test for your peace officer license.

it's similar to a doctor, any person who has a job that involves handling the life of civilians should have to go through a rigorous training process.

So you think only rich people with time and money to spend on am education should be cops?

Sounds better than the shitshow we have now.

sure, if you think that education should be a business. which I don't think should be the case either.....plus why wouldn't you want someone who is faced with life or death making decisions to be well trained?

I concur about education. It should be a feature of society, not a privilege.

I think we should all be equipped to deal with such situations. No point in waiting for a cop when my life is on the line. Cops aren't crime fighters. They're managers of inequality. Under a different paradigm, I would want better trained and equipped cops. But rather than advocating for bandaids I'm going to advocate for clearing the minefields. Most the problems that you think require a SWAT intervention probably would never have happened if not for the many interventions of the state.

Crazy violent people are a byproduct of a crazy violent system of government. Let's prevent instead of punish.

How big is a "community"?

Nono; in numbers of people.

There are counties in Kentucky smaller than towns in California.

If you are proposing any form of communal living that includes public servants, I figured you had an ideal ratio in mind. I mean, if you don't define a community ahead of time, an entire country could be a community.

I may agree or disagree with you, depending on what you mean by what you say. But if you can't be bothered with specifics, one might assume you haven't actually thought it through that much.

Also, if you aren't already familiar with Dunbar's number, I would definitely figure you haven't thought this all through enough.

If you were, why ask why a number of people was important?

Welp, here ya go; I think you are either trolling or ignorant, because the ideas you are bringing to the table are half-baked and ill-formed.

Ask Rojavans or Neozapatists.

Thry turned to anarchism precisely because the centralized state was not providing such services.

they still have democratically elected committees to make decisions....this is not anarchy my friend. just because they decided to separate themselves from syria, it does not mean that they are anarchist. this is like when the U.S. declared its independence.

You're not well informed on how their system works so I'll attempt to guide you to some information.

http://www.biehlonbookchin.com/rojavas-communes-and-councils/

Essentially they reject the state and employ grassroots direct democracy from the bottom up. Those comittees are only there to represent the desires of the neighborhoods that elected them. They aren't legislating from the top-down but from the bottom-up.

besides the name, how is this any different than when we vote for judges, sheriffs, city council members, states representatives etc?

It'a the difference between voting in a ruler and voting in a servant.

Decisions are made by the voters at the neighborhood level which are then represented at higher levels that help implement those decisions that have a regional effect.

Vs.

Voters elect representatives to make decisions for them at a regional level that effects everyone.

Also their voter turnout is way higher. Like. Nearly 100%. And should I repeat that the decisions are made at the neighborhood level again? Maybe point out that it isn't an adverserial majority vote that's rushed, but a consensus based vote where everyone has input and the decisions require the consent of everyone?

forget voting for president. if you are not voting for city council members then you are doing things wrong. this is where it starts. these are the individuals who you are supposed to vote for who have the power to influence your community. as far as poor voting turnout goes, that just sounds like lazy Americans to me. people are more consumed by stuff like the Kardashians then worrying about the future. you have to have a shift in priorities before you can see a change.

I agree and I think people's apathy is engineered through distraction, exhaustion, and mostly the generally dismissive and egomaniacal way that people who seek such positions treat their constituents.

Either power corrupts or the corrupt seek power. Either way, my village council is 90% asshole and 10% mouse. Reforming that broken club of degenerates could take decades at the least.

Anarchism simply demands the justification of authority. Everyone is an Anarchist, they just don't know it yet.

What about economic system?

Lol. Abolish the government, than have corporations come in it's place? Like 1984?

cor·po·rat·ism ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm/ noun the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Oh hey, I don't think capitalism is about competition, it is about monopolization and exploitation of the labor used for production and control of what is offered for sale and at what price.

I think that is a clever marketing idea, promoting the lie that capitalism is based on competition.

I think that's false advertising. Free markets are good and they are nowhere to be found under crony capitalism.

Yup. His argument is silly considering the economic system he is advocating for.

competition is method on deciding who gets to monopolize and become 'the one' and exploitation is like a by product of that process

I think that is called take over or acquisition, or run the competition out of business with dirty tricks.

Oh maybe I misunderstood your idea of corporatism.

Corporations are almost always centralized and hierarchical, based on a misunderstanding of the body's organizational structure that assumes the brain's dominance.

Also incorporation is a centrally controlled activity. Corporations are a feature of statism, not an opponent. At least, that's my observation.

I'm gonna have to look into that. Corporations ring all the same wrong bells in my head that monarchies do. Lol

Up is down and down is up!

You have it backwards. Corporatism is the result of capitalism off the rails.

Mutualist syndicalism.

/u/RMFN I think nexus was asking for an proposed alternative not the observable reality.

Lots of stuff has been written on syndicalism. It's essentially the same as worker owned cooperatives. NeoZapatists in Chiapas have been having great success with it, as have certain business entities in Spain (Mondragon) and the US in my backyard (Organic Valley.)

There's still room for improvement but it's a damn sight better than the kleptocrayic corporations most people work under today.

I could not agree more, my friend.

anarcho monarchist

What's that

Yuck.

Sorry I'm with you almost all the way but monarchism? Did you see Game of Thrones? Equating anarchism with monarchism does few favors for the majority's opinion of anarchism.

How do you explain the monarchist part?

What if I don't want to be king? Jk. But really, a majority of civilized peoples appear terrified at the prospect of making decisions for themselves.

Sure

Anarcho Monarchy, what a contradiction! Yet you want to be free. Who said people want to go back to Feudalism? Shall we have land divided amongst warring kings? Why should only the government have monopoly on violence, right? Medieval times, anyone?

Isn't Anarcho-Monarchism a branch of Anarcho-Capitalism? Lol...

I believe OP is referring to a philosophy which researcher Mark Passio is known for.... If you have true internal monarchy (understanding of sovereignty and self-ownership), we can have external anarchy (no rulers - no slaves). Keep in mind, anarchy literally means no rulers, not chaos. The prefix "an" means absence or lack of, and "archon" means master or ruler.

we were

KANGS

Makes no sense considering that OP believes in Corporatism as an economic system.

but even for the monarchs to be granted the status of sovereignty they had to be anointed by a higher power.

chaos is the inevitable outcome for a society that lacks morality and common sense during a state of anarchy. which looking back into our history was almost always the case. it just became synonymous with the word. which sucks for us because we have to reestablish an understanding of the the words meaning every time discussing the topic.

LOL are there prisons in anarch0-monarchy land?

Where do you put people who "break rules".

What happens if I kill your daughter and get a bigger community to tell you to fuck off?

Exactly, and if I kill your daughter or kidnap her and keep her as my concubine. Then what happens if I get a bigger community to tell your community police to fuck off?

Strawman? So your ideology is so weak you can't tell me what happens if I commit a heinous crime against you and you don't have the manpower to oppose me?

Figures.

Mohamad

Wow, you get real mad when called out on this ideology.

Surely the perfect Christians never took sex slaves.

What about pagans? Did they take sex slaves?

The Asians definitely had concubines.

Buddists are in Asia too genius.

Okay. They still had concubines.

Is that a copy/pasta?

Depends, does consensual BDSM count?

Kinky.

But yet there are "rules"

Are rules written?

As in down on a piece of notebook paper so people could read it. Oh I forget... anarchy. Only half the people can read.

You keep saying community... but you actually mean mini-government?

What are rules but the observation or prescription of consequences for certain actions?

true

Removed. Rule 10.

LMAO! You can't kill anyone, you lack the stones. Also you ignore that Native Americans had anarchistic culture, the common goal was the survival of the community. If you fuck with one, you fucked with them all, because they depend on each other for survival.

If you and your hypothetical community threatened another hypothetical community it would be handled similar to tribal before colonialism.

Anarchist community? You know native Americans had chiefs right?

Figures we get your stupid reply to the half baked idea that is anarchy.

Yes they had chiefs just like wolfs and apes have alphas, it's a pure meritocracy, devoid of stupid concepts like progressivism.

My problem with this approach is that, without codified laws or an actual police force, you are depending upon the community taking action. If a woman acts like a bitch to everyone and someone offs her, will the community care? She was mean and egotistical. Maybe the community will decide that she's better off gone. No one liked her anyway, so should her killer really be punished? What about the town drunk? Or maybe a Christian community will turn a blind eye when a Wiccan or a Muslim is killed.

Alternatively, they may decide that someone who is popular in the community doesn't deserve to be punished for their crimes. We see this in schools where people will defend a popular football player who has been accused of rape on the basis of how important they are for the team, and how everyone likes them.

Under anarchy, it seems that in place of actual rules and laws, the legal system is now nothing more than a popularity contest.

What happens if I kill your daughter and get a bigger community to tell you to fuck off?

That's part of having true freedom. We are not guaranteed safety in this reality.

Where do you put people who "break rules"?

Is your imagination just completely dead?

Wow that was an incredibly stupid response.

We are not guaranteed safety in this reality.

Is this not true? Or do you think we are safe and should be?

Is your imagination just completely dead?

I ask you this because you demonstatre that you either are not capable of imagining a different way of doing things, or too lazy to do so. So, asking if your imagination is dead is a valid question, because without it NO change can ever happen within an individual or a society. If YOU cannot even ponder a new way of doing things, then your imagination is dead just like TPTB wan't you to be.

It's true and it's the post of my post.

Funny all those words and you still haven't described how to punish people who break rules.

I have a lot of imagination but I asked his opinion, not your bad defense of just bad everything.

What?

Pay attention to who you're responding to.

Huh?

Punishment doesn't correct behavior. Read a book on training people. Positive reinforcement has all thr evidence and negative reinforcment had a lot of dead trainers.

But in a society without a discouragement system in place the positive reinforcement would be crime.

"I cannot rob that guy and rape his hot wife, or I can, and nothing bad will happen to me and I benefit from his money and the sexual thrill of his wife"

But in today's society with a punitive discouragement system in place, criminals lose all ability and will to engage society in a mutually beneficial way.

We don't need the consequences of bad things to be more bad things. We need to address the root causes of crime. Not a revenge society.

I don't think anyone disputes that, its pretty common sense.

you still did not address in a society where you get positive reinforcement from taking others liberties how you would discourage that from happening

People are largely intolerant of such behavior. In between self-defence, revenge, and public shaming, I fail to see how such behavior would be encouraged.

If you kill someone in private, how would anyone know it was you and thus be able to publicly shame you or the likes?

Unless of course there is a group of funded individuals to investigate this death and impose some kind of positive or negative consequence (which ever you want to have in this theoretical system).

Yes, most people would not happily take part in taking others liberties, but it would still happen, perhaps to a greater extent now because people who would only think about it now know they can do it without consequence, and only gain.

Over one third of murders in the US go unsolved as things are today. Today's police steal property and life with impunity because of a lack of consequences. People don't talk to the police because they fear being incriminated themselves and they resent the cops for the aforementioned repercussionless killing and stealing.

We can observe today's reality and see how corrupt and ineffective centrally planned justice systems appear (US and Russia) and we can compare that to how self-governed justice systems (Rojava and Chiapas) apparently have less crime and less corruption, and we can draw conclusions based in history rather than philosophy.

Today's police steal property and life with impunity because of a lack of consequences.

So... you are saying when people lack the consequences for murder and theft they take advantage of that situation...?

you are proving my point for me

While that conclusion isn't wrong. Your assumption that a society of people governing themselves would be less able to hold each other accountable then a society of people being governed by Psychopaths who seek control over their fellow man

what is to prevent the psychopaths rising to power in your model?

a society of people governing themselve

That is what is always strived for and in every circumstance it seems to end in

Psychopaths who seek control over their fellow man

Sounds like you basically want to have the current constitution, just unwritten with no legal recourse.

I fail to see how that would be better than actually having a written manifestation of our liberties. If it is written in our government and the psychopaths still rise to power, how would an unwritten "understanding of liberties for all men" be any different, if not worse?

Dude have you even read the Articles of Confederation or that series of papers the Anti-Federalist papers.? Your understanding of the Constitution sucks. It Was Written specifically cuz federalist thought was that the average person was too stupid to govern themselves and what they needed was an educated Elite to govern them. Hence the whole deal with Representatives and 3 supposedly balanced branches of government. So stop. Just stop. You're starting to piss me off.

You didn't answer the most important question I raised though, which is, in your model, what would prevent the psychopaths from rising to power?

Instead you averted the question and and criticized my understanding of our government, which doesn't that prove the point you just made? That I am not smart enough to understand how the government works and therefore prb couldn't run it properly?

So in that case, do I just cede my thoughts on government over to someone like you to make the decisions? Kinda sounds exactly what you just said the constitution does with Representatives.

Or are dumb people like me just as active in your model and my opinion respected and if agreed upon by high enough numbers or "merits" that our wants or ideals are carried out?

Structuring government horizontally from the bottom up eliminates the hierarchy thay psychopaths abuse to get idiots with authoritarian personality disorders to unquestioningly obey them.

Like, the whole point of self governance is to avoid the ascendancy of psychopaths to places of power. That's literally the intention, whereas the intention behind representative congresses and parliaments is to enable that behavior.

You still don't understand how consensus works. You're also apparently unfamiliar with the Snafu principle. Tyrants don't listen to their minions. Tyranny thrives on idiocy and opacity. Self-government thrives on communication and transparency.

Shay's Reb was something covered in my 8th grade curriculum by a teacher with your standings, so I am well aware of it.

You keep saying how this system prevents the rise of power hungry types, yet still not have described by what mechanism this would be done other than saying some broad terms.

You still don't understand how consensus works.

Ok, so you gave that as a "mechanism", I counter with the same link you gave me, but linking directly to the criticism link within the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticism

How do you ensure none of the points here do not manifest?

Secondly you never responded to how people like me, who you disagree with in your system? Can I and like minded people throw a rebellion against you and kill you? Is that fair game? What would stop us, or is this ok and or expected in this system?

I've wasted enough time on you.

ahhh the words of defeat =]

Ahhh fuck off. This was never an argument.

Oh also the reason the AOC was dismantled was because it was to weak of a document and the confederation of states was unable to conduct efficient interstate commerce or diplomacy with foreign powers. So it doesn’t really help your point

The only reason the AOC was considered weak was because the central government it outlined was too weak to properly oppress the early americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

So you have no point.

So state of constant rebellion/death/destruction of private properties/liberties is ok in your model?

Doesn’t sound very efficient when there is always fractorl groups with opossing beliefs.

That just sounds like a state of domestic violence. Where is the mash equilibrium? Or is contact rebellion Your Nash EQ?

You didn't even read the article on Shay's rebellion. Shame on you. You haven't read any of the sources I provides. Shame on you. You have no genuine interest in what I have to say, so kindly FUCK OFF

You sound like a muppet.

Cop

If we truly had an anarchistic system it would be more community driven, exile from the community would mean certain death/loss of status/resources as it does in most pack animals. That alone would self limit negative behavior. Such a method is impossible currently as money has replaced the tribe, and blinded us from our interrelatedness.

Impossible for some people in some places? Sure, but it's not a universal impossibility.

Oh I totally agree, it's completely possible for people to cooperate and build something together, something positive. Having been part of a team game for a few years, the collective drive to improve vs your competitors forces you to step your game up everywhere. It's thrilling and stressful at the same time, and when you succeed together it's one of the greatest feelings a human can have, probably second only to seeing your child born.

We aren't guaranteed safety under government either, fwiw.

Precisely. Reality by nature is not "safe".

That argument shows up a lot when anarchist alternatives are offered to statists. "But what about [insert undesirable component of reality here.]" To which the response should be, as you did, to dispell the illusion that statism prevents undesirable stuff from happening.

Probably much much much much much smaller prisons.

Probably you put them on a list of people known for offending your sensibilities.

I probably assassinate you in your sleep.

? A mixture of all kinds.

What Americans got now ain't bad for a capitalist system.

You can find faults with any system. Americans don't have a real oligarchy. Just a meme one and it did get strengthened by Trump's tax cuts.

America's political system is all I've known and it created this society. Without laws and government pedophiles can roam free. People can just call others a pedophile and kill them in your system without any real recourse other than murdering back. There will be nothing but blood until someone forms a cooperative community... or a government.

I'm against all types of those abusive practices human and capitalistic and America has eliminated it for the most part. Also we have police that catch pedophiles. Perhaps not all of them but when people say it's more of an epidemic than in the past, it's just wrong and blind.

Obviously best form of government is a monarchy with me as ruler. DUH!

Without laws and government pedophiles can roam free.

Won't somebody please think of the children!

I'm sure some people would like the cruel world of letting them free in a world with the internet.

We've had high profile pedophiles exist right under the noses of and within government for decades at least, and I'm not talking pizzagate. Dennis Hastert, Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, and these are just some of the ones that made international news. They were able to do what they did because of the power structures which protected and hid them, not in spite of these.

Yet they were finally caught. If others are protecting or covering up. That's not the fault of a government structure but the people within those structures.

Imagine a world where they get accused then nothing happens because there's no police. Everyone just tending to their gardens because food.

Yet they were finally caught.

Jimmy Savile abused kids for decades and was only found out after he died. Great system we got here.

That's not the fault of a government structure but the people within those structures.

By this logic, government structures never do anything wrong. It's just people!

Imagine a world where they get accused then nothing happens because there's no police. Everyone just tending to their gardens because food.

We don't need unaccountable police with a monopoly on force to protect our children.

We got? That was in the U.K. Maybe quite a system you got?

We don't need unaccountable police with a monopoly on force to protect our children.

You actually do if you want to have a court system.

As I said, it's fine if you anarchy types want to all kill each other over petty things that cannot be punished. I can defend myself fine. Now it's "our" children. So you're going to protect your neighbors children now?

Obviously. The name is to expose the troglodytes who can't see the whimsy of my zed.

It's a reference to antifa being bullies and pushing Adam Sandler around until they get fucked because they are obviously just pushing people around.

There's a lot of troglodytes out there.

BTW that reply wasn't to you...

I'm paid? Yet you're the one who goes around posting blatant propaganda.... oooohkay

Sorry your ideology sucks.

You may come to regret those comments.

No I won't. But next time you call something propaganda I got you by the balls.

What about it?

Well first of all, I'm pretty sure it's illegal because it's like extremely high interest or something. Do you ever have people tell you it's good?

So you're going to protect your neighbors children now?

Yes, I would much prefer mutual defense among my own community than being forced to pay tribute to a government that exploits the people for the benefit of the oligarchs.

This just only reinforces my belief that so many more people are communists. They just meme that they aren't.

I ain't watching my neighbors kids. "Mutual defense" that's what we have right now as a society by paying for things like police, military, fire departments. The police aren't all bad, no matter how much we can complain about them.

What if no one in community likes you and expels you, then people take your land and daughters.

I guess it's okay because govment always bad.

"Mutual defense" that's what we have right now as a society by paying for things like police, military, fire departments.

We most certainly do not. Mutual defense means voluntary cooperation to defend common interests. Our current system is not voluntary at all. Don't pay your taxes? Go to jail. Disobey the police who's authority you never consented to? Go to jail.

What if no one in community likes you and expels you, then people take your land and daughters.

Sounds like you live in a shitty community if no one would stop them. Why are you living there?

Yeah but the police isn't making you suck their dick unless they are human trash. They enforce a set a rules that anarchy cannot. It's simple.

What about being in an anarchist hellhole against your wishes?

Yeah but the police isn't making you suck their dick unless they are human trash.

The Stanford prison experiment showed that ordinary people given institutional authority tend to exhibit the behavior of human trash.

What about being in an anarchist hellhole against your wishes?

Then form you're own form of government with anyone who voluntarily agrees to your rules; just leave me the fuck out of it.

Yeah power does corrupt the weak minded.

Sorry buddy but you're about a few thousand years too late to claim a piece of land and hopefully something doesn't claim dominion over you because of a different government. A lot of times a government is created to protect against other governments. Anarchists would have a hard time keeping simple land to grow food without a protective collective of people. Which is the beginning of government.

Going to anarchy from what Americans have now can be summed up by "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

It's better than a situation where a mutal defense guy rapes your child and when you confront them they kill you and your daughter. At least it was pure anarchy.

Anarchists would have a hard time keeping simple land to grow food without a protective collective of people.

Who said anything about not having collectives? Community doesn't disappear if we abandon coercive and compulsory states, nor does organizing voluntarily for common goals.

You have a very depressed view of human nature if you feel we can only coexist peacefully with a powerful state to constrain us. It's also contradictory that you think giving power to these killers and rapers you go on about somehow helps anything. Those with the worst impulses and integrity are inevitably drawn to positions of authority over others, and giving those positions and institutions more power and authority leads to the worst among us making rules for the rest.

I'm in a conspiracy sub. Of course I have a depressed view of human nature.

People around here regularly speak of demonic satanic pedophiles cabals. Do they get comments of depressed view of humans? No.

What if most of the people in your community don't want to organize a collective? They want you do things completely on your own.

Where can you even claim a "sovereign" place to be that you and other no state people "control". What if you can't protect it and it's conquered immediately.

Is there even internet? What if your area doesn't have resources and you have no monetary funds because your money is labor?

Well I need this amount of steel to make pipes. For plumbing. I think I'll go over and barter some of this corn for steel. Oh shit they don't need corn? Well. Oh well. I'll make an outhouse. Anarchy!

People around here regularly speak of demonic satanic pedophiles cabals. Do they get comments of depressed view of humans? No.

You can make those comments if you like.

I think there's a substantial difference between saying that there exist people who give in to their destructive and harmful impulses toward themselves and other which are exacerbated and encouraged by the structure of our society, and saying that humans are incapable of existing without being told how to act by an authority.

What if most of the people in your community don't want to organize a collective?

Simple: they don't organize, and sink or swim based on their fortune and ability. No sweat off my back.

Where can you even claim a "sovereign" place to be that you and other no state people "control".

You're asking about how we get from here to there, which is a valid and pertinent question in anarchist circles. I don't think the solution is direct opposition or confrontation to states, but agorism and counter-economics. Essentially (but vastly simplified), if we stop feeding the state and corporations with our time and labor, they will lose power on their own; their power comes from our participation in their games. If we meet our economic needs and desires through black and grey markets, through gift economies, through time banks and other such practices, we rob coercive institutions of their power.

Is there even internet?

Sure, why not?

What if your area doesn't have resources and you have no monetary funds because your money is labor?

Why are you living there?

Well I need this amount of steel to make pipes. For plumbing. I think I'll go over and barter some of this corn for steel. Oh shit they don't need corn?

I'm against fiat and usurious currency, not currency altogether.

Why are you living there?

Ah I forgot. For an anarchist moving is as simple as murder and take a new area.

We should all be against fiat currency. But what your saying is just sort sighted. I hate corporations as much as the next person but what if in your anarchist society if you can even call it a society without going communist, the "corporations" assume the means of production. They take the land, they take the resources and all you have to do is "move" right?

There's way to many problems. That's why even some of the most primitive tribes and civilizations have a leader. Religion has a leader.

I remember you asking PLC how property rights are enforced. What changed? Are we all just conquerors now?

As for internet. How are people going to pay for it? Who controls it? Who produces it? Everyone that makes computers and routers is a corporation.

the "corporations" assume the means of production.

Corporations do not exist independent of the people who take action on their behalf. Corporations don't "own" anything except insofar as other people respect their claims of ownership, and under statism as far as the state protects those claims against others.

Religion has a leader.

Ah, and what a glorious bringer of peace that has been!

how property rights are enforced. What changed? Are we all just conquerors now?

I don't think private property is a right; it is only by mutual consent that we may use the land.

How are people going to pay for it?

Connected meshnets. Each community has a meshnet (or more permanent infrastructure) to connect with the community, and communities connect to each other through backbones. Say town A and town B want to connect. They agree upon an approach to connect the towns and how traffic will be allocated. Most of the infrastructure already exists.

Who controls it?

You're not getting it. No one controls "the internet." People just network themselves.

Who produces it? Everyone that makes computers and routers is a corporation.

No, everyone who makes computers and routers are people, namely the workers and the managers and the accountants and everyone else needed to produce them. Corporations are simply one form of organizing complex projects where the owners of the corporation receive the profits.

My actual solution to this is syndicalism and worker-owned cooperatives. You should check out the Mondragon Corporation in Spain for an example of this working today.

Pretty sure Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist.

Why go through meshnets when we have an existing infrastructure in place that allows us to connect with Beruit if we wanted.

Do people still own individual resources? Like oil, steel, internet, are people going to take control of water? If not, we are just going into communist territory. Like real theoretical communism not the fascist shit Stalin did.

Respecting claims of ownership is what usually scares anarchists into a state. The fear of losing everything when a bigger force comes to claim what was "yours".

But if you want to go as far as no private property then obviously you're going to encounter a lot more opposition on that topic but not from me.

Pretty sure Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist.

He is. I agree with him on a lot.

Why go through meshnets when we have an existing infrastructure in place that allows us to connect with Beruit if we wanted.

I imagine we still would to a large extent. The meshnet's are for those communities who don't currently have robust infrastructure or want a certain amount of redundancy for outages outside their direct control. If Verizon/Comcast in your neighborhood goes out, you're disconnected from everyone, even in your own community.

But I see no reason not to use existing infrastructure if its already there.

Do people still own individual resources? Like oil, steel, internet, are people going to take control of water?

Very few people control the majority of our natural resources today, mostly through corporations. I would say no one has exclusive control of natural resources in situ, and those who extract them can claim the fruits of their labor. Individual communities can come to their own agreements on how to avoid tragedy of the commons situations. (I think global capitalism is horrible in this regard, and if you believe in anthropogenic climate change I think you'd have to agree).

If not, we are just going into communist territory.

Yeah, sure. I'm not afraid of that word like so many seem to be. Differences between left and right economic theory tend to become much less distinctive as one moves toward either the authoritarian or anarchic pole. State fascism under Hitler or Mussolini and state socialism under Stalin or Mao had much more in common with each other than either do with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism respectively, and I would say vice versa (though less certainly).

But if you want to go as far as no private property then obviously you're going to encounter a lot more opposition on that topic but not from me.

I expect it. At least you give arguments for your positions rather than lame one-liners like PLC.

I appreciate it. Sincerely.

It's possible, but there's no PROOF. Not one person has come out scorched Earth and revealed the plot and the blackmail they are in. People who are blackmailed typically may act irrationally to keep it hidden or expose the scheme because they don't want the stress.

Now we going to realms of human sacrifice. Which again... could be real but nothing verified. Nothing confirmed. No one speaking out in million of people except people who say these things on conspiracy subreddits.

Of course I have.

As I said. Monarchy. With me as monarch. Best political system ever.

Until then the American government ain't bad. I dunno how many times I have to tell you.

Trolling? What a pathetic comment from you.

Nah you trolling for sure.

Oh hey I triggered the guy who thinks he has the "stones" to kill someone and that others don't.

Both sides are more religion. You wish you could do anything but annoy me. <3

Hey I annoyed you? LOL.

Not yet.

You wish you could do anything but annoy me. Oh but I did. I just imagine you reading my comments then seeing it's me. You huff and puff get all red in the face as you furiously type. You lick your lips and just get more angry. Finally you finish and feel so happy with yourself.

Then you see another comment and start it again.

Lol you wish you were that important. Don't get off your anxiety meds again.

Lucifer's son.

TIL anyone who defends the Left is a troll. If you don't agree with someone the only logical explanation is that they're a troll.

I guess without context you'd say that. However this user has a history of bitter partisanship, which give away his intentions. To deny such partisanship when confronted, to display such blatant deflection implies a level of trolling.

I just told you a mixture of both. You see I'm not so ridged that I need a firm set in stone "political ideology".

You're just trying to call me a cultural marxist like typical republicans do.

I'm for crony free capitalism. A state. Democracy. Socialism in one country. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech, from the government. Call it whatever you want.

What's yours again? A made up oxymoron anarchist-monarchist?

If I'm not monarch then yeah, those ideals are fine. You have no scientific value so your critique on what those terms means, means jack shit.

You put two words together because in your simple mind "govment bad so anarchy good" then you threw a term that is associated with a state being controlled by one person. And you think you make sense.

Plenty.

The lynch you.

Source: EZLN territory, one of the only true anarchist lands in the world.

Don't those places technically have a parent country. Mexico and like Syria, Iraq, Turkey?

Doesnt make a difference since they technically have complete power over their areas.

Then why doesn't those country's give the Kurds a state inbetween them all?

They dont recognize them? You think Mexico will literally give up a piece of their land to them? Why would they do that

That's exactly what I've been talking about.

So these anarchists arent succeeding because of foreign states?

So no, not really a successful anarchy group if you can even call it more than wishful thinking. Their parent governments could take them or everything from them at any time.

You said it yourself. Are those places going to give them a piece of land?

I mean it's not really an anarchist group if you're protected by a massive state. You're just living the lifestyle of everyone helps each other and there's no leader. Except there is... hundreds of miles away.

In the Kurds case they are spread between like 4 countries and had to organize and create leaders to fight ISIS.

Their parent governments could take them or everything from them at any time.

Not really, those government are unable or unwilling because of the logistical problems of such attack, the mexican government deems it not worth the effort to destory the EZLN

You said it yourself. Are those places going to give them a piece of land?

So ANARCHIST now need an official paper that says they OWN THE LAND?

the mexican government deems it not worth the effort to destory the EZLN

LOL WHAT'S THE POINT! They just consider them Mexican citizens that are out of the way anyway. Unless they sitting on diamonds or something.

No, but it would be nice if they had a slip of paper that doesn't say Mexico owns the land.

What happens if I kill your daughter and get a bigger community to tell you to fuck off?

Well, if you're big enough to be called government, that's democide. All the murders from war doesn't even compare to the millions of dead people caused at the hands of their own government. That's not a good track record to be defending.

In what reality does private murders surpass the atrocities caused by government? Am I in the wrong subreddit? Just who are these non-government murderers that rally large community support? The drug cartels? They don't even come close, and I would argue they are the result of governments war on drugs.

I think your fear based on lack of evidence is misplaced.

I think your lack of context is just that, lacking.

Can you prove there were more murders by their own government?

More than say, a foreign government?

So that's it. Your entire answer is hurr durr it's democide.

We are talking about anarchy. And by community I mean 30 people vs 5. And it's hypothetical.

You can take your half baked lack of context comments to yourself.

It's just a blind rage at the government. Not the people running it, but the system itself. Lots of governments have also been good and beneficial.

Can you even name a single benefit we gain from anarchy other than rampant unchecked crimes against humanity?

I thought the context was clear. You seem to be concerned about unchecked murder in the absence of a ruling class (i.e. anarchy). I wanted to make a point that unchecked murder still happens in the presence of a ruling class (i.e. government), and historically the overwhelming majority is caused by governments murdering their own citizens. Not hypothetically, but in actuality. Not by a few dozen, but kind of a lot. Like tens of millions of murders. I didn't think this was up for debate. Haven't you ever heard of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?

Can you prove there were more murders by their own government?

More than say, a foreign government?

Political science professor, Rudolph Rummel, who coined the term democide estimated over 272 million civilians were murdered by their own governments. "To give some perspective on these numbers, Rummel pointed out that all domestic and foreign wars during the twentieth century killed in combat around 41 million." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel

Can you even name a single benefit we gain from anarchy other than rampant unchecked crimes against humanity?

First, I reject your premise that anarchy (a society without a ruling class) causes "rampant unchecked crimes against humanity". Secondly, I prefer to stay on topic regarding murder in the presence and absence of government.

Well considering most things have been governments including ancient civilizations. Did you factor those in yet?

First, I reject your premise that anarchy (a society without a ruling class) causes "rampant unchecked crimes against humanity"

I reject your rejection. People cannot be made to destroy civilized society because past governments have committed atrocities.

Are you going to go out and build the roads? Are you going to pay them? Are you going to farm? What's your value?

Under government people aren't committing mass atrocities and crimes like pedophilia get punished.

Notice how you didn't even mention a positive of anarchy. Just a denial.

Denial? You asked for proof. I gave it to you. You ignored it, and seem to want to take this in a different direction. Either you're trolling me, are not interested in serious debate, or... Not worth it. Take care!

Proof? You haven't listed a single thing that anarchy makes better than to just scream denial.

Belgium's 0.7 percent GDP growth during it's record breaking period of anarchy was higher than the euro zone's average of 0.2 percent

This has nothing to do with anarchy. Belgium still had a fully functioning government during all of that.

Many would disagree.

It's like you didn't even read OPs post.

What does it have to do with OPs post? The anarchy part in the title is just for clicks.

Belgium existed in the state of rules without rulers for 589 days. Exactly as OP describes.

Democracy is demonstrably unnecessary for a functional society.

It had rulers all those days. What are you talking about?

Fuck me. no government = no rulers

But it had a government while the other government was forming. It had a budget. Every government function was still working during the formation of the other government.

What does a ruler do?

Rule... like the government during the formation of the next one...

What does ruling entail?

Hint: enforcing rules and distributing money is not in a rulers job description.

Jesus. Get to your point.

Ah. I thought you wanted a discussion about political governance structures.

I didn't realize i was being trolled by r/topmindsofreddit. Well played.

I'm asking you to get to your point. You still havent explained how your link relates to this... and I wanna know how it relates cause I see zero relation.

It literally had a government with pretty much all the powers as the one before it. Only they didnt use all those powers for obvious reasons. How does that count as having no rulers?

Apperently its too hard to answer and instead accuse me of being a troll and part of topminds. You should look at yourself.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. I have provided a real world, recent, sourced example of this statement which is directly on topic. My point is that in the Belgium example, the power to create rules was absent, therefore there were no rulers even though existing rules were being enforced. Your claim that this is not anarchic is not backed up by any evidence other than repetition, however I provided three independent counterexamples where they consider the Belgium example as anarchic.

I accuse you of being a troll as all you have done not engaged with any of my sourced points or offered evidence or reasoned argument to the contrary.

Is your goal here to impart wisdom, or to change my opinion? At the moment, you are achieving neither.

The temporary government made "rules". Such as an anti smoking law on 17 december 2009. Not only laws but they also partially or fully nationalised certain banks in 2011.

Belgium had no government from 13 June 2010 to  6 December 2011 so anything in 2009 is irrelevant. Maybe you are thinking of July 2011 when Belgium's Constitutional Court banned smoking in Belgium's bars, restaurants and casinos without exception. This is not new rules, this is a court enforcing existing rules.

The dexia rescue, again, was an implementation of existing laws.

You've not convinced me, but at least you are now contributing to the discussion. I do appreciate that.

Why do you keep saying it had no government? Google leterme 2.

And how was the dexia thing implementing existing rules? There are no existing rules for that. Unless you can link me some of those rules in belgian law.

There was no coalition -> There was no ruling party -> There were no rulers -> there were no new laws.

Dexia were offered a loan by the government. Doing this did not require passing a new law. Note that financial crises happen much faster than laws can be drafted and approved.

I challenge the assertion that government can ever be fully functioning.

Probably depends on semantics of "fully functioning"

Working pretty much as before that event.

The one in the link.... first comment.

Ermmmmm.... the comment I responded to.......

Lol

Korzybskian general semanticist.

The biggest problem with decentralization would be that someone somewhere would centralize and create a big army to start conquering the decentralized communities. This would lead other communities to want to centralize so they can protect themselves against this big centralized army.

Better to be enslaved to "my" state than the "other" state.

Right on right on

What is that even mean? What is your solution to a group of people centralizing and invading your community?

The devil you know...

Unreal.

Idk, the grass oft seems greener...

you seem not aware of things like community conflicts on africa and boko-haram...

It's really easy to decapitate such a serpent.

Beheading a hydra of anarchosyndicalist militias is nigh impossible.

like, yeah, man, it's nigh impossible to kill a who-gives-a-shit-o-ist phony buzzword that doesn't exist out here in the real world and only exists in the teenage boy bedroom Imaginationland of losers who're too chickenshit to go outside and get their hands dirty doing Real Work.

"Instead of clearing his own heart the zealot tries to clear the world." -Jospeh Campbell

"It is by going down into the abyss that we recover the treasures of life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure." -Joseph Campbell

People are doing the real work all over the world. It's evident to anyone with the will to gaze in that direction.

like, yeah, man, it's nigh impossible to kill a who-gives-a-shit-o-ist phony buzzword that doesn't exist out here in the real world and only exists in the teenage boy bedroom Imaginationland of losers who're too chickenshit to go outside and get their hands dirty doing Real Work.

Imagine if everyone was this anti-intellectual before capitalism existed, we'd still be feudal sirfs.

I agree. For as long as people are not free inside their own heads they will continue to blindly follow the commands of tyrants. The challenge therefore is to combat the years of indoctrination (example: https://youtu.be/Q2BfqDUPL1I), and allow people to see the truth that they own themselves.

I recommend the following video if you’re interested in a more thorough explanation: https://youtu.be/N6uVV2Dcqt0

I agree. For as long as people are not free inside their own heads they will continue to blindly follow the commands of tyrants. The challenge therefore is to combat the years of indoctrination (https://youtu.be/Q2BfqDUPL1I), and allow people to see the truth that they own themselves.

I recommend the following video if you’re interested in a more thorough explanation: https://youtu.be/N6uVV2Dcqt0

I've heard this idea a lot but are there any historic examples? The only anarchist society I can think of off the top of my head is revolutionary Catalonia, which was crushed by outside forces.

YES!

States will dissolve and disappear as we advance. They serve no purpose. Communities can self-govern and with freedom of motion and lack of borders the like minded can associate freely.

Bowing to central authority is a memetic disease deliberately cultivated by those in power. It has no place in the age of the internet. We could have actual democracy instead. Put bureaucracy on the blockchain.

Anarchism seems foreign to most because the only conversation allowed to play out over the past 200 years has been Capitalism vs Communism, both requiring oppressive authority. Said oppressive authority has approached a synthesis, an international aristocracy of sorts.

But Empire and Economy are both religions presented as something else. It doesn't matter that economics is backed up by mathematics. Like any other language math can be used to tell any story you want. We can tell a better one.

Listen to space jesus. He died for our space sins. He knows what's going on... in space.

Moving into a truly equal, infinitely abundant world will require a complete restructuring of our economic and governmental models.

The word memetic has meme in it This isn’t relevant at all and I probably shouldn’t even be on this sub, but I just thought i’d Point that out since nobody else has

Dawkins coined the word 'meme' in the 70s I think, a counterpart to genes. A cultural information unit.

Then he spent his career saying memes weren't important :P

Ironically the idea that the state would eventually wither away is very much a Marxist idea.

I do agree that anarchism is most likely the way forward though.

what in this case would stop any people to congregate and exploit the fact that there would be no central government besides the local community?
like most part of the middle ages...

Prefix "An"= without. Archon=ruler. Without rulers. The way it should be!

You're naive and or just dumb if you think "community policing" would be anything more than gangs taping and robbing and murdering at will.

Lynchings in the South were a form of community policing. Wasn't good then, and never will be.

When you move out of your parents house and get an actual job not flipping burgers you will realize how much of a jackass you sound like.

K

Sucking dick for money doesn't count as a business

Removed. Rule 4.

Removed. Rule 4.

The phenomenon of mafias forming seems to be a natural human mechanism. How can you possibly remove power structures. They will just form from nothing, and they will be tyrannical.

What if it's kept in secret? Surely you must know about secret societies (secret power structures)

You are completely right, they would be able to completely overtake this ripe unregulated society for their own liking. Without anyone realizing before it's too late. When it's too late people speaking out get silenced, because the people rising to the top have a stronger inclination for power than morals

After I watched a hundred hours of ISIS movies back in 2014-2015, that experience began my sharp veer into the ultra-right, and forever turned me off of any urban soyboi bugmen pseudo-intellectuals with worthless million dollar Liberal Arts degrees who don't do shit with their lives, who ain't never worked a single day of honest hard labor in their lives and who are the biggest hypocrite closest-Marxists tapping away their screeds into their iPhones taking potshots at the same civilization that enables them able to idle away in unproductive labor who are themselves fucking leeches on society's asshole doing nothing but taking and giving nothing back to help their community.

You want anarchy? Go live in a shack in Montana like Ted Kaczynski. At least he lived what he wrote. Everyone else can take your empty teenage rebellion "fuck you dad" lifestyle Anarchy and fuck off.

Human beings require some minimal a priori structure which evolves into Laws and Govt and systems of punishment and reward. Even if you think the same fallacy as the pink ol' Commies that "Pure Marxism just has never been implemented correctly" and claim that Pure Anarchy just needs a chance, you're no better than a Commie.

Anarchy will never happen for the same reason Total Communism will never happen. It's physically impossible. Human nature has an instinct for Evil. There will always be some Warlord who instead of Leading the Revolution of the Proletariat becomes the next tyrant and who starts anew the ancient cycle of Regicide.

So 100 hours of ISIS videos triggered you so hard you joined a the side of the hard core religious nuts in America?

Go watch the ISIS movie "Makers of Illusion", which was released around October 2015.

Links to it are on Telegram if you know a few Arabic keywords.

The 45 minute long film take place in a cattle slaughter house. Half a dozen ISIS mujahid with swords have about 30 prisoners dressed in orange Gitmo jumpsuits.

The prisoners are all hanging upside chained the ceiling.

The lead Jihadi makes threats to the kafir and preaches as he walks past each prisoner. One by one, he saws off their head with his sword. He pulls off each head, then holds the upside body over the drainage trough on the floor. Blood flows like a flood. After about the 10th beheading, you get numbed to the hypnotic ritualist reptition. The worst part is seeing each prisoner is completely docile and makes no jolting moves in resistance to their final end.

That movie was the worst thing I have ever seen and you could call that my "come to Jesus" moment. Whatever disgusting horrific demon-pit of Abaddon that made CIA and Brennan and Obama and Crooked Hillary and a cast of thosands of Deep State lackeys hatch their plot to create, fund, arm and help ISIS--pure Satanic Evil which hasn't been seen in centuries--whatever forces of This Present Darkness who would do that must be utterly destroyed for the sake of the world.

It was then that I declared Total War on the Deep State. It was then that any Enemy of theirs became a friend of mine.

You mock Christ because you're a snivelling Shitlib ensconed in your bubble in Elysium and so you don't have any idea just how bad it is outside your safe space of privilege and decadence.

Whatever disagreements I might have had with Christianity flew out the window after seeing the evil that is ISIS.

You think wishy washy pussy Liberal Atheism stands a chance against a fanatical doctrine like ISIS?

Christianity is the soul of Western Civ, and if that light ever goes out, so the the West. Then ISIS moves into to fill the vacuum and "Remain and Expand", as its motto goes.

You want that shit to happen? You want fucking ISIS to win?

Jesus needs all the help he can get. If everybody thought the same way as limp wristed cucks like you, then ISIS would have already won.

Now I'm not saying everybody has to become Ned Flanders, but everybody does have to agree on the same core theological map that got us this far.

Preserving Western Civ and the Glory of Rome is worth fighting for. Being unashamed to be a Christian, even if you're far from perfect, and even in the face of a mocking and jeering pop culture that has brainwashed everyone into Nihilism and Atheism and Marxism, is a conscripted duty for every descendant of Western Civ.

Carthago delenda est!

Lol you are triggered. Why don’t you go jack off to the Handmaids Tale?

The problems with the human nature argument are:

1. Human nature is demonstrably incredibly flexible. We went from tribal hunter-gatherers to having nation states, monarchies, corporations, marriages, bosses and employees, etc.

2. Anarchism and communism are closer to how we lived "in the wild" than our current society.

What stops these communities from torturing and raping their own people. What stops them from taking over other communities?

Nothing. So in the end it will turn into what we have now. It's inevitable.

Do you not understand? How did humanity start? Small tribes. Then larger.... Then larger... other communities would take over communities. Or band together. Creating cities. Then it's gets larger and larger and larger. Having counties, states.... countries.... supranational identities. Having kings, prime ministers, presidents and emperors. It's human nature. In the end these small communities and countries are just the same. Just in a larger form.

As of right now it is

We have the best globally implemented system so far but at one point mercantilism was the best system, before that it was feudalism.

What stops these communities from torturing and raping their own people. What stops them from taking over other communities?

i believe that you are not thinking in the world we live... those things happen exactly in the places were central government is weak. Libya, Afghanistan, iraq, somalia, parts of bulgaria and moldova, in the desert fringes of sub saharan africa, in brasil slums...
the thing is that a anarchist society, any group that has an advantage over others will be EXTREMELY compeled to do so.

Serious question how does this relate to a conspiracy. Is it the conspiracy that groups aren't allowing anarchism to operate on a country wide level. Or is this something that's better suited for a political discussion sub or a change my mind.

That doesn't make any sense

No in general anarchism at it's principal is just political ideology. I understand the concept of suppressing such ideologiez but anarchism is not being suppressed by the powers at be it's being rejected by the general population. Democracy is at more of a direct threat by the global powers.

Sure and air is killing us

Says the boot licker

It's crazy how people can't see this despite the fact it's so obvious. The ruling class will obviously use their power to obfuscate alternative systems that would strip them of their power. That's why anarchism is conflated with anarchy and socialism/communism is conflated with state ownership.

It's not even necessary for them to convince everyone that these redefinitions are the legitimate meanings, just enough people so that those who do express these beliefs will be unable to effectively communicate with those that don't.

I agree with your point, there is no direct conspiracy link.

However, TPTB always push their form of democracy (only the Swiss model comes close to true democracy) and anarchists are painted as wild troublemakers, much like conspiracy theorists.

There's probably more relevance to conspiracies in this topic than others that are posted here (e.g. Hillary's back brace).

First time I've seen a post here discussing anarchy, pretty cool. I think the world has become far too big for anarchy to take place. Maybe groups of anarchist's, yeah.. but not an entire state or anything. I think a lot of people are too afraid to abandon their trust in government because they don't know what to do next. It's just stepping into unknown lands pretty much. I think that's why a lot of people call it a ridiculous idea. There may be a ton of other reasons though. But I know for sure that we've lived with this system long enough that we don't know anything else. And it continues to do more harm than good.

I think the world has become far too big for anarchy to take place.

Anarchy is the default condition between nation-states at this point. The UN and international law does not constitute a state, but mutual agreements between sovereigns. If it's good enough for states, why not for individuals and communities?

Wait sorry, are you asking why anarchy isn't good enough for individuals and communities?

No, I'm claiming that it is good enough, and using the argument that if it is good enough for nation-states, it should be good enough for us.

Yeah but there's not enough of "us" out there. I don't think everyone is on board with going full and true anarchism. It goes back to not knowing anything else besides the system we've been brought up in. Even if you say you hate the systems or government, you don't really know anything else besides it. So you just keep living in it. Unless you decide to be homeless or something. Those are the true anarchists in this time period in my opinion. Everyone thinks differently I guess.

Yeah but if it wasn’t then I wouldn’t have found this and I wouldn’t have pointed out that one of the comments used the word memetic, which has meme in it

I love it. It involves the word meme, so it reminds me of my only strength while I waste my life doing literally nothing but shitposting in weird places

This thread has been linked to by another sub.

The admins have given us neither the tools nor the support to stop brigading and vote manipulation. It's evident that it happens, yet we as mods have no power to stop or contain it. We've tried contest mode in the past, which only further ruins the chance of constructive dialogue to emerge. Contest mode took away the power for you, the user of this sub, to determine how you got to see your content.

We're trying a different path. We're setting the default sort for this thread to /controversial, which we think will reflect the comments of those who question mainstream narratives more so than the /hot sort does. Yet we fully respect your decision to consume the content of this sub and comment as you see fit, so it's easy enough to change the sort back to /hot to see this sub as the votes determined, to whatever degree you believe those votes to be either fair or manipulated.

If you would like to question our decision to change the default sort, do so in a reply to this thread. Any discussion of this sticky comment or the moderation of this sub outside this sticky thread will be removed.

Topcucks still allowed to openly brigade on reddit, I'm so surprised.

Cucks? Ohh so edgy.

Yawn. Yikes. Gross.

Wow this is stupid. Laws exist but don't exist, and nobody can enforce them but nobody is enforcers. T

No gods, no masters.

Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom Of God Is Within You” is a great read on this subject: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You

When did the definition change from just absolutele mayhem?

Anarchy means chaos, anarchism doesn't.

So, Sadist has nothing to do with sadism either? That is not how words work

I should have said that's generally how they're used. While anarchy and anarchism share meanings, if you say "anarchy" people will think of chaos, if you say "anarchism" people will think of the political ideology or the state anarchists seek to achieve.

Which is chaos and the destruction of government? Just because you think something different doesn't make it different

It is the destruction of government, but not necessarily chaos.

From Google:

anarchism

noun

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

• a political force or movement based on belief in anarchism.

I saw that definition but was it always that?

Etymologically anarchy literally means "without rulers", it comes from a combination of two ancient Greek words. At some point a couple of centuries ago, Proudhon coined the term anarchism to mean the political beliefs surrounding a society without rulers.

I don't know when people started using it to mean chaos though.

Without rules

Without *rulers

It comes from "an" which means "without" and "arkhos" which means "ruler"

Anarchy is not natural.

Yes. No matter what people form a government. Even in a tribal community they get a chief.

Anarchy is just simply not natural. People come a form of agreement to protect the herd. Even in nature wolves have alphas.

Yeah but wolves don't live in a society like humans do. And even with wolves, they're all their own individual. If the alpha can't hunt an animal cuz its out of breath, then the others will take over and do it for them. It's not like the alpha is controlling what they do. Some wolves can even leave the pack if it wanted to and just roam free. You gotta remember the lone wolf.

Lions, Gorillas, whatever. Anarchy is stupid.

Ironically wolves don't have alphas in the wild, that's only in captivity.

Could have used lions or gorillas.

I'm not sure how naming animals with hierarchies proves that anarchism is unnatural considering there are many that exist without hierarchies (outside the parent > offspring hierarchy)

Well, considering none of you people can even give a positive about anarchy and just talk semantics that the example isn't exact. I'm right.

Right about what? The only point I've seen you make was wrong (anarchy is unnatural)

anarchism is a human ideology is as natural as its gets. no matter what kind of ideology, rule, systems, governing body we create, in the sense of a grander scale of time, they're fragile and temporary at best.

but there is one law no being can ever ignore while living in this 3d particle simulated reality and that is the rule of nature, survival of the fittest. this very law is embedded into our own laws and systems we create to cope with the pain and suffering that stems from our animalistic existence.

predatory lending, tax cuts/havens for the wealthy, (or just taxation in general), requirements for a license, degrees that makes you so indebted before hitting the work force is all to make it harder for new players to compete with the powers that be and to have us abide them to the rules of the powerful to keep their monopoly.

i just wanted to paint a picture that survival of the fittest has never gone away, it just took shape to make it easier for predators to harvest upon the weak mindless sentient beings. and that is how we are sheeples(arguably hardly sentient).

It's completely unnatural. We always form a tribe and a government or a collective of people to stop other governments.

If you think this is not reality then do something crazy then eh? Like be against the anarchy meme because people hate wealth and working for a living.

anarchy is the starting point/base line for any societal development and in cases were things dont work out it reverts back to the basic.

for human society on a smaller scale like tribes it was morals and ethics that dictated our behavior. a society with a good moral background and common sense can maintain peace and order during a state of anarchy. but through out history we showed that we tend to become raging primates, common sense is hard to come by when the group expands and the need for rules and laws were vital as guidelines on how to behave and treat each other.

i do want to point out that between anarchy and order, it is not a black and white, switch on and switch off, dual state. they always co exist within society with gradient tones and degrees.

the country that threats you doesnt abide by your laws, goes by their own rules and there is no force above them to say knock it off. they are about to commit a crime according to our rules but to them its justified. most people imagine anarchy as riots and looting but is it safe to say there is anarchy on the national front of geopolitics if there are no entity governing the nation? then it goes back around to start where nations has to act like tribes and base their judgement with common sense, ethics and morals.

now lets take that analogy to a more personal level. you be walking down the street. got cornered by a hobo that looks pretty squanchy and huuungry. ah shiet he got a knife out. now you're about to get either mugged, beaten then mugged, maybe a dash of rape since you happen to be on the floor unconscious, or just straight up get eaten alive cuz he on PCP and fuuungry AF. anywho in any one of the chaotic scenario there is a clash of two modes of operation with no higher force to mediate and enforce the rules that is commonly excepted. so in this moment this scene is in a state of anarchy.

criminals in general are just anarchic. with no regards for law, rules and common sense. when there is an act which nobody likes and a consensus will be reached to ban the act and enforce it with a punishment accordingly. in most cases the act has to exist for the law to be even thought of. laws are mostly reactionary while the acts like stealing, raping, murder is sucks to say, part of the nature of our universe. where those who will usually do

That's objectively false, anarchism is the default state of being.

Thag said, I don't think something being unnatural means it is wrong. Especially since we're talking political philosophy wnd capitalism, feudalism, socialism, anarcho-capitalism, fascism, etc. are all unnatural.

It's not false. Anarchy is simply not natural and anarchy is an outlet for pedophiles/rapists/murderers/thieves to do what they want with no government to stop them.

Everyone thinks they'll survive anarchy but they don't know the first thing about growing food and preserving it. Modern civilization will not function in anarchy.

It seems like you're using "unnatural" to just mean "bad"

States and governments are man-made inventions, nature is anarchic.

It's not. Simple tribes make a chief.

People are not stupid grazing animals as you imagine.

It's not. Simple tribes make a chief.

Primitive tribes are very horizontally structured actually.

People are not stupid grazing animals as you imagine.

Don't start strawmanning, I think humans are intelligent enough to function without a ruler.

Ah, so you think humans are stupid for forming governments?

Seems like your grasping at straws.

Putting words in my mouth again, so disingenuous.

I think humans are smart enough that they don't need to be herded by a state, I believe humans can organise society through decentralised voluntary local government.

The word anarchy is often conflated with Anarchism. Anarchism is a broad political philosophy that entails a general disapproval of hierarchy and elitism. It comes in many different flavors and variations, but it tends to advocate for rule by the people rather than rule by a codified state. Some modern modern Anarchists(adherents to Anarchism, Noam Chomsky being the most famous) have proposed that a society run by true adherents to Anarchism would be both highly organized and highly democratic/participatory. It is all highly theoretical/difficult to implement, but so is each and every political philosophy when you boil them down to their essence and observe how they behave in the real world. Socialists are allowed to be Capitalists, Capitalists are allowed to be Communists, Conservatives are allowed to be anti-conservative, Liberals are allowed to be...well you get the idea. Anarchism is put under a more stringent microscope, and accused of being a hypocritical philosophy, than any other major political philosophy. It has historically been one of the most brutally oppressed, both with propaganda and violence. Why is this you may ask? Well, if you were an elite oligarch who had enough power to influence public discourse, would you want a bunch of people running around with a brazenly an anti-elite ideology?

Do you think that maybe humanity as a whole is not evolved enough psychologically to have true anarchy?

wuh.... my brain just got the blue screen of death... so anarchy is to have no ruler and monarchy is to have a ruling bloodline. so we get kings that doesnt rule, iono i feel like those two words just cancels each other out... or does 'anarcho monarchism' mean something totally different that i dont know about?

but any other governing system sounds good with some anarchy stock broth... hell even anarcho-communism sounds alright... but my fav would be crypto-arnarchism..

by definition it is a state of lawlessness, no rulers and no rules.

No, this is wrong. Look at the etymology of the word "anarchy".

An = Lack or absence of

Archon = Ruler or master

Anarchy means no rulers and no slaves. Just as "monarchy" means one (mono) ruler.

yeah yeah i get the etymology and all but if we're to have a decent conversation why not use the terminology that is accepted by all modern sentient primates. just because you know the archaic primitive meaning of a word doesnt make you right. even words evolve and change its meaning...

also ruler and rules come hand in hand... one in the same and can't have one with out the other... obviously there is no need for a ruler if there is no rules. and here is a brain teaser

'should laws that is unenforceable be considered to be a law?' and what about the laws that nobody abides or never enforced...

copy/pasta

noun

1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3. anarchism (def 1).

4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

5. confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

I think the confusion here is between anarchy and anarchism, I've copy/pasted the definition of anarchism from Google:

noun

• belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

• a political force or movement based on belief in anarchism.

• "socialism and anarchism emerged to offer organized protest against the injustices of Spanish society"

It's simply no hierarchy, no rulers. You've been duped

Yes and no. Anarchists I self identify with would disagree with much of this.

Yes, anarchy means without rulers (an=without, arch=ruler). Just like monarchy is one ruler, and matriarch means woman ruler, etc. I don’t believe the fact that anarchy has come to largely mean chaos is a “deliberate trick”, but instead what is generally assumed will be the end result of a society without rulers, thereby lending to its negative connotation. This is why I feel many who believe in the same principals prefer to call themselves libertarians (not to be confused with the political party) or voluntarists, and not anarchists.

I also have a problem using the word “system” when describing anarchism. Anarchism is NOT a system, but a strict belief that we own ourselves. You are your own property. That’s it! Everything else is simply an extension of this core principal.

It can be argued one such example in-line with this belief is the “golden rule” (treating others as you want to be treated). However, the most often heard example from anarchists is the non-aggression principal. This states that every human interaction should be voluntary, and it is inherently and morally wrong to use coercion, by initiating or threatening violence against another. Again, if we agree I own myself and you own yourself, it would be a violation for either side to impose their will on the other, and defense against such aggression is justified.

This is why anarchists believe government is inherently wrong. To rule or govern literally means to control, and all governments assert their dominance using threats or violence. Therefore, governments by definition violate the non-aggression principal, and the concept of self-ownership. Anarchists view the words control and freedom as polar opposites, just as you would never associate slavery with freedom when describing how a slave master (owner) uses coercion to control their slaves (property).

If you're interested to learn more I highly recommend watching the following two videos:

https://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I

https://youtu.be/N6uVV2Dcqt0

this...

i’m an Anarchist and i have this argument so much, thank you!

Rules are only useful for those to enforce them, have fun with your “citizens arrests” in jails that wont exist

Does this mean that I get to have Farmer Jones' farm for free?

Please spend some time listening to Noam Comopski's on ideas about anarchy.

Anarchy is simply a system in which to government is accountable to the people who rule them.

The rulers of the world live in a de-facto anarchy because no one is powerful enough to police them - they do it themselves. The state and the government is only to deny common people this position of freedom and equality.

Rules become the rulers. It is a hierarchy, because our actions are curtailed by the rules. Moreover, someone makes the rules, and someone enforces them. Even if that is you and I together, someone else might disagree with our decisions. What then?

Could you please briefly explain anarcho-monarchism to me? I've heard the term a few times on Reddit.

Apologies if you've already explained somewhere.

anarchy means that you are alone and if anything happens to you nobody should care.
the problem is not that there would be no ruler, the problem is what will stop someone from become a ruler in a totaly fragmented society that the anarch movement predidcts?

you know, anarchy it is not a utopia in this world... you can go to LYBIA, most of IRAQ... SOMALIA. there you can see what means no government and just you and your comunity against ALL THE REST THAT BREATHS AND MOVES.

Digital democracy is this epochs revolution. You’re fucking simple if you think anything else.

Open source the mechanisms of government and reinstate civic obligation. From there we can take it socialism or AI abundance, but please fuck off with this needing a leader/daddy figure to always be right.

Lol.

You're dodging the question repeatedly. When you say "choose", what does that mean in practice? In a town of 1,000 people, when they "choose" who will be a judge, what does that process look like?

society's own unchecked self indulgences with no brakes

Wow that was an incredibly stupid response.

Surely the perfect Christians never took sex slaves.

The fact that you continue to be as vague as possible demonstrates how impractical this all is.

Listen to space jesus. He died for our space sins. He knows what's going on... in space.

We aren't guaranteed safety under government either, fwiw.

Moving into a truly equal, infinitely abundant world will require a complete restructuring of our economic and governmental models.

forget voting for president. if you are not voting for city council members then you are doing things wrong. this is where it starts. these are the individuals who you are supposed to vote for who have the power to influence your community. as far as poor voting turnout goes, that just sounds like lazy Americans to me. people are more consumed by stuff like the Kardashians then worrying about the future. you have to have a shift in priorities before you can see a change.

Ermmmmm.... the comment I responded to.......

It had rulers all those days. What are you talking about?

What does ruling entail?

Hint: enforcing rules and distributing money is not in a rulers job description.

If I'm not monarch then yeah, those ideals are fine. You have no scientific value so your critique on what those terms means, means jack shit.

You put two words together because in your simple mind "govment bad so anarchy good" then you threw a term that is associated with a state being controlled by one person. And you think you make sense.

Maybe I need to repeat myself for you. Anarchy is Stockholm syndrome.

The word memetic has meme in it This isn’t relevant at all and I probably shouldn’t even be on this sub, but I just thought i’d Point that out since nobody else has

I love it. It involves the word meme, so it reminds me of my only strength while I waste my life doing literally nothing but shitposting in weird places

I don't think anyone disputes that, its pretty common sense.

you still did not address in a society where you get positive reinforcement from taking others liberties how you would discourage that from happening

Then why doesn't those country's give the Kurds a state inbetween them all?

Lol you wish you were that important. Don't get off your anxiety meds again.

Ironically the idea that the state would eventually wither away is very much a Marxist idea.

I do agree that anarchism is most likely the way forward though.

I think the confusion here is between anarchy and anarchism, I've copy/pasted the definition of anarchism from Google:

noun

• belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

• a political force or movement based on belief in anarchism.

• "socialism and anarchism emerged to offer organized protest against the injustices of Spanish society"

what in this case would stop any people to congregate and exploit the fact that there would be no central government besides the local community?
like most part of the middle ages...

The only reason the AOC was considered weak was because the central government it outlined was too weak to properly oppress the early americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

So you have no point.