91–100 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we totally saw that during Covid...
LOL. I got screamed at by a lunatic because my three year olds trainrobber bandana wasn't covering her nose. Banding together has caveats.
>The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. That's a crock of shit, look at how brutal early civilizations were compared to today. You have an argument over long terms (100+ year spans), but not in the near term. If you want the assumption to apply to the n…
Perhaps you have confused anarchism with a "state of nature"? An anarchist society needs a lot of organisation.
My definition has always been that we can have laws, we can have rules, we definitely need rules, but everyone must have a chance to understand how they're made, and everyone must have a chance to be part of the process. The only true democracy is anarchy. If we can put a man on the moon and hold elections then surely we can construct a functional anarchist system.
If you're a true anarchist you believe more in rules than anyone else. Rules about littering, about right of way, rules that enforce order. Because without centralized leadership everyone must help enforce the rules.
Which is also why it'll never work in practice of course. It will always remain a dream, it goes against evolution, really. If evolution is throwing dice then it dictates that sooner or later someone will go against the grain. No system is perfect and sooner or later someone will exploit it.
The true nature of human politics is just pure chaos. Dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, or like Pac said; "gimme gimme gimme, everybody back off". It's like a biological survival instinct to hoard wealth and protect ones own against the world.
Another question: do you consider yourself neither left nor right on the political spectrum, because you believe that society is fundamentally broken and both sides just further consumerism in different ways (the right supports big business directly, and the left tries to create equal opportunities for everyone to further consumerism)? If so, then you may be an anarchist.
Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. Most of them are a libertarian wing of far-left.
"Far-left" is a derogatory term, a synonym for "left-wing extremist". Nobody considers themselves an extremist. I've noticed that my own views seem to be to the left of any mainstream political party here. For me, that just means that all the mainstream parties are right-wing.
I reserve the term "far-left" for hyper-dogmatic communist revolutionaries who don't object to using violence for political ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, they wouldn't be left wing if they presented centrist liberal ideals would they? you, too, may be confusing liberalism with leftism. almost as if it was the intended function of the liberal project...
"Left" is a relative concept. The original French revolution left was liberalist. Liberalism is the core ideology of the current western world. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberalists. Even Putin is predominantly a liberalist.
He's an authoritarian autocrat. I've never come across a definition of "liberal" that includes that.
>The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. That's a crock of shit, look at how brutal early civilizations were compared to today. You have an argument over long terms (100+ year spans), but not in the near term. If you want the assumption to apply to the n…
Compared to today? In the past century hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered by states. Compare that with any "private sector" killing, now or in "early civilization" and the mounds of bodies are non-existent by comparison.
Counterexample: Pirates had a fairly anarchic organization - certainly more anarchic than most ships. They were still pretty good at killing people.
That is not the real test: The real test is: Your friend’s daughter had her drink spiked and then was raped while passed out by a bunch of frat guys. If you believe that you and your buddies should get together with guns and baseball bats and go to the Frat house and exact justice/revenge on them, then you might really be an anarchist. All the situations outlined are nice and good. Self-organization should be the def…
The state doesn't enforce anything resembling justice for rape. Rape is rarely prosecuted and difficult to prove in a court of law.
Now, who do you think should deal with it, your buddies or the state?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The effectiveness of the state’s enforcement is orthogonal to whether you believe it is their responsibility. Do you believe that the state should be trying to enforce justice for rape, or do you think it should be the responsibility of a “self-organizing” posse? If we agree that it is the state’s responsibility, then we can talk about ways to improve it. But then, you are already not an anarchist.
I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate. The problematic parts come up with how you pay the judge (stealing from 3rd parties), jailers etc and much the other stuff the state does. It would probably be m…
So again, think of murder instead of rape. The victim isn't going to enforce a right to justice - they already failed to do so. Now what? Do you just shrug and say "you should have defended yourself better"? In that environment, can you not see how much it would absolutely suck to be a loner who is both physically and financially weak?
Worse: Can you not see that you are in fact physically, financially, and socially weak? You're going to be the prey. So think very carefully before you advocate this "utopia".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate. The problematic parts come up with how you pay the judge (stealing from 3rd parties), jailers etc and much the other stuff the state does. It would probably be m…
> I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate. So again, think of murder instead of rape. The victim isn't going to enforce a right to justice - they already failed to do so. Now what? Do you just shrug and…
While I acknowledge the difficulties in justice with murder you're just arguing over which group of buddies is the bestest, and picking the biggest murderer of them all. Not seeing any improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. Most of them are a libertarian wing of far-left.
> Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. "Far-left" is a derogatory term, a synonym for "left-wing extremist". Nobody considers themselves an extremist. I've noticed that my own views seem to be to the left of any mainstream political party here. For me, that just means that all the mainstream parties are right-wing. I reserve the term "far-left" for hyper-dogmatic communist revolutionaries who don't object to…