You know whats best for yourself.
1mon 27d ago by lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/A404 in flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com from lemmy.dbzer0.com
...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.
The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.
Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.
Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.
I love people who are so confident that they're the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here's the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you're actually open to learning.
I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don't think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to "learn something". I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?
Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.
The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I've read it.
Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.
Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You'd rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You'd rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.
If I don't study conservapedia, it's not because I don't have a curious mind or want to be informed. How is this any different.
BTW, I went and looked up "Law" on your wiki, and fuck if it didn't confirm that I had it exactly right. The only substance on the page makes it clear that laws and Anarchism are not compatible. The rest is a bunch of hand waving nonsense about community standards.
BTW: The Wikipedia entry on "Anarchist Law" makes a hell of a better case for it. You should have sent me there.
The prehistoric southern levenant was peaceful for over 10,000 years despite not having any laws or police.
Just gonna drop this info here. 👆
The prehistoric.... Prehistoric, like "before history"? Like, before anyone would have written things down. That's pretty convenient. Call me skeptical that they had no hierarchies or violence. Especially given that primitive primates today have hierarchies and are known to have "wars" between neighboring groups,
How did they deal with drunk assholes driving 70 miles an hour past a playground?
Look, I know anarchism sounds like a childish fantasy. Thats what I tought too until I read theory.
And when you get a little older you will read more things (one might hope) and you'll think even more differently.
I could give you more examples.
The Indus Valley civilisation was a large scale egalitarian civilisation with a estimated peak population of 4-5 million people.
The Cucuteni-trypillia civilisation Started out as a peaceful egalitarian civilisation.
Cayonu started out as a hierarchical civilisation but became egalitarian after the lower class overthrew its rulers.
None of this addresses my point at all.
Human brains evolved to operate in small societies and, barring extreme circumstances, we do real well in a world where 99% of the population dies within 10 miles of their birthplace. It's when social networks grow beyond 150 or so people that things really start to break down. That's not an issue for ancient societies, but that's toothpaste out of the tube. We aren't going back to that unless the human population falls to a tiny fraction of what it is now.
I share a dislike of hierarchy and think that we could have a whole lot less of it than we do now. If an anarchist society would actually function in the modern world, it would be a lot closer to my vision of a just society than our current world is. I think anarchist philosophy makes arguments worth making, but actual mass implementation is ridiculous. Frankly, I see it as a way for edgy Internet philosophers to excuse them from actual political activism on fronts that might actually do some good.
Theres also a article addressing that
The fact that you can't make a single point in your own words without linking me to what amounts to propaganda is pretty telling. Nothing I've seen in that wiki has been intellectually honest or even interesting. I have no interest in continuing this kind of conversation.
Okay, thats fine I suppose. Have a nice day.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?
Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.
What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.
Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.
even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.
so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.
it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.
indeed :)
👆
that's a very petit understanding of anarchism
I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.
i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn't "give a fuck".
Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)
With youth comes assumptions. You'll age out of it soon enough little whipper snapper.
I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being "anarchism is...").
Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.
Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.
But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.
Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.
The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.
The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.
This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.
I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.
I think it sounds nice, but it's hard for me to take it seriously.
They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.
How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I'm just saying that an-prim isn't a realistic model for the world.
Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don't produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.
Isn't the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?
They all have support of industrialized areas. None of them are/were an-prim.
Not sure if I understand you correctly. You say that all of them are importing industrial goods? That doesn't imply that they are not anprim.
Let me know if I misinterpret you.
I mean, none of them would describe themselves as an-prim.
Does it matter which tags they associate with? As long as they are not doing industry, and living with nature, that's all that matter.
The Viet Cong and Kurdistanis are "living with nature"? I don't even know what that really means. It also seems to me to be against the spirit (if not the practice) of anprim to simply outsource industry.
Like I said at first, I think it (anprim) sounds nice but only as a kind of vague ideal. Fun to think about, but I can't take it seriously as any kind of revolutionary aspiration. And again, I don't think any of your examples (which are worth taking seriously, btw) are anything like my understanding of anprim.
We need to overhaul our ecology. Our current ecology is too dependent on extractivism
I like this analogy
thank you :)
But who will tell me what to do!?
What's the difference between this and libertarianism?
If I am not mistaken, Initially anarchism was called libertarianism, but later libertarianism was co-opted by American pro-market believers and now refers to anarcho-capitalists.
As for why an-caps are not real anarchists you can read an in depth explanation here. But briefly it is just an oxymoron. Anarchists believe in a world without hierarchies and capitalism is a system defined by the existence of two classes of people(capitalists and working people) and their relationship to the means of production. So there is an inherently hierarchical relationship within capitalism.
Anarchism is older and we have actual working examples
No government can give you freedom🏴🚩