Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

> There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road

And if they go there anyway?

What, are you going to setup a giant wall around society?

That's the point. You cant actually stop someone from being in society without using force.

> you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food

Sure they could have access to those things. There could be other people who choose to sell them a house or sell them food, in exchange for their labor, or other goods.

What are you going to do? Stop these other people from selling them food?

You'd have to use force to do that.

There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists.

> They will either leave, join society

No, actually. The other possibility is that they refuse to leave, and other people continue to do business with them. Likely through engaging in trade with them for their labor.

You are not going to succeed with some sort of embargo against them, unless you plan on using force yourself.

> We're not building roads to random strangers houses

They don't need you to connect roads to their house. firstly, because roads are already connected, all over the world. And 2nd, they could just find someone who already has a house that is connected, and rent from them, by exchanging labor or goods that they have acquired.

Or maybe some people would perfectly be fine with letting them stay for free! Charity exists and is common in the world right now. I see no reason why it would stop.

What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them?

It would be exceeding impractical to enforce some sort of society wide embargo against people who refuse to pay taxes, because you are not only going to have to embargo the tax evaders, but you are also going to to have to embargo the people who refuse to follow your embargo. And then, what? You exile those people to? Who already have a house, and are already in the city, or connected to the roads, and are living in society, and the like?

Ridiculous.

You can't do that effectively, without using forces, lol

Or even beyond that, there could be a critical mass of people who refuse to leave society, and also interact with each other. IE, they still use your roads, but also trade with each other. And the trade between them is enough for them to sustain themselves (especially since they already get the benefit of the roads and stuff, but don't have to pay for it!)

.

Consider direct democracy. If the populous directly proposes and votes for explicit genocide.. how is that a failure of the system? That's democracy in action. To believe in Democracy fundamentally is to believe that The Will Of The People should be done, whether it be noble or heinous. You have to trust the people to make their own decisions and to learn from their mistakes after they have borne the consequences of their actions.

If you concentrate power then only a few get to decide on the matter of genocide. Don't you want a direct say against genocide?

Currently the people bear no responsibility for the actions of their government. They can always say "I just voted for him I didn't know he was going to do that." They are never culpable, never responsible. How can society learn under such conditions?

It's easy for many to ask "What if someone does bad?" under a proposed alternate political system while over looking that representative Democracy is just rebranded tyranny.

Instead of one king we have thousands. Kings of law, kings of the court, kings of action. The people who decide the system have no checks on their power. Once elected we have no hold on them, we can only say "Well we won't elect you again." But only after unjust law had been created. How can any person claim to speak for another? Don't you deserve a direct hand in shaping the rules and priorities of the society you live in? Why should you surrender that power to some random person? How much would you pay someone to undertake a complex and critical task for you without a contract? Would you pay them all of your share of power that is rightfully yours to shape the order of the world you live in-- receiving no guarantees in turn?

To call the KKK anarchist is to ignore that they had the tacit approval of the state and contained within their ranks many state actors. It seems odd to me to ask how Anarchism would prevent the rise of the KKK when the state permitted the creation of the KKK.

One view is to see the KKK as basically raiders/marauders who left their own communities to terrorize other communities. Without a state to intervene on their behalf obviously the affected communities would have to rise up in self-defense. So, what really happened? The state didn't intervene on the behalf of black communities. The state would've brutally put down any attempt to resist the KKK with force, black communities were not permitted to use force. The KKK were a state sanctioned paramilitary group carrying out a mission of terror with the aim of preserving the racial hierarchy at the center of the south's the social order.

You might ask "How would this be better with Anarchism?" but I find myself asking "How could it be any worse?"

Not the same poster, but I think his point is:

Consider a world where society lived by the anarchist principles. In that hypothetical world, most people self-organized in a large group where:

- They decided to democratically appoint representatives that flesh out large-scale agreements and called it law

- They decided it is necessary to have people dedicated to securing the lands where they live from both internal and external threats

... and so on and so forth, until they effectively self-organized into the equivalent of our current society.

Is there any difference between that world and ours? Why can't an anarchist assume that this is what actually happened (there's some merit to the idea) and be happy to live in an anarchist world, our world?

> capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion.

That "notion" also goes against all available evidence.