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

No. This is not black and white. Case in point: Religion. Is it okay to prosecute someone for that? They choose it after all. You might say he was born into that, but same goes for rich children. I hope I don't need to argue on why prosecuting for a religion is a bad thing.

To be fair here, I don't think it's wrong in all cases to judge someone for his groups. If you say everyone in the KKK is bad, that's fine by me (and, FTR: I agree). But the hypocrisy irks me alot.

>Not everyone in the US lives in some 100 person small town "community". Instead, many people live in cities that have hundreds of thousands of people in it.

Which can be broken down into numerous communities living together.

>People absolutely still continue to support family members, all the time, even when they do "bad" things

This isn't someone doing a "bad" thing, this is someone of full mind willfully saying they want nothing to do with the family. You think they'd still force their aid on them?

>And there is nothing that you could do to stop me from helping them, unless you are going to do something very impractical, like exile everyone who supports their friends and family as well.

You seem to still be under the impression that "I" am forcing my will. Decisions are made by the community, that these people are a part of. I'm not forcing people to sell out their friends, their friends are the ones rejecting their help. Your idea that people would still unquestionably offer help to people who have stated they do not want it and will not return it is just silly. If that happened in modern society, we would assume mental illness and barring that cut ties for at least some time.

All of your arguments resolve around someone committing some bad deed, and some faceless authority issues punishment on them. That is so far removed from what is happening, I don't know how to continue this conversation.

This response has put me firmly in the "you need to think about this a bit, bantunes" camp.

Why?

The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. It certainly isn't a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, South African, or, well, the "rest of the world" phenomenon. To me, this makes me think you are viewing the world from a US perspective, without any attempt to see things from outside that prism.

On top of that, the wild assertion that "boomers" somehow created an authoritarian government is beyond incomprehensible. While every generation has its flaws, yes every single generation, boomers were the hippie generation.

Yes, hippies. The "free love" movement, anti-authoritarian counter culture that quite literally existed in highly conservative Western post-war cultures. The level of protest, anti-materialism, anti-corporate stance which hippies took, particularly in the US, far, far, far outweighs anything seen in the decades since.

Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace.

But, let's walk away from the fact that boomers = hippies, and hippies protested, fought, and died in protests en mass, and even enacted some real change. Let's look at the overall assertion here.

You're claiming republics were "obvious", and that this somehow sparked an instantaneous move from feudal, to republic. Yet in many places, these changes took literally centuries. And the powers of Kings were very gradually eroded, sometimes with blood, and other times with threat of blood.

Even "revolutionary" moments in most Western cultures were smaller stepping stones, each effecting smaller sections of culture about governing, and self-governing.

And really, suffrage for the "common person", for example, is less than 100 years old in many democracies. Like the UK, Canada, the US. In fact, for many cases, less than 50 years!

And this change was gradual too. For example, in the UK with Lords challenging the King's right to tax, creating the "House of Lords", or the modern Senate. Or, the allowance of freemen with significant land, or land rental, being allowed to vote.

It wasn't until 1918 that all white men in the UK could vote, and women/everyone else at 1928.

This was a gradual, step by step change, each transformative, but each fought for.

Now ... I have no doubt change will come, for there is nothing that ever remains static.

However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". Literally, that is what anarchism suggests. For, you cannot compel people to leave, or stop them from doing things you don't want, if you do not use violence as an end tool.

If you have a counter to this, a realistic, logical, sensible counter to the idea that people will just all be nice to one another? I'd love to hear it.

I really would.

> your friend said they don't want your help.

I am saying that if my friend "rejected society", but also asked for my help, then I would continue to give them the help that they asked for.

It would not be an asshole move if they have asked for my help, but also have "rejected society" at the same time. Because they asked for my help.

My support for my close friends and family is almost unconditional.

And I am talking about the individuals who both "reject society", and also want to live in that society, in a house or something, or they want to be able to eat, and these specific individuals are asking me for help, while also "rejecting society" at the same time.

I would provide them that housing or food that they asked from me, even if they "reject society".

> That is not analogous to what is being discussed. A closer example would be a family having an argument about where to celebrate Christmas, until finally someone breaks off and holds their own celebration.

Yes it is analogous. If my friends or family did what ever it is that you are saying that they are doing, I would still continue to give them unconditional support that they ask from me.

> until finally someone breaks off

And if they "break off" but still ask me for my help, then I would still give them my help.

No, I can't, but I would absolutely love for you to point it out for me so I might improve my thinking.

Are you actually able to point out where I've gone wrong?