the actual political spectrum.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (124)
sorted by:
I'm a sheep because I point out your sophist bullcrap, right.
Being able to do something and being free (like having a right) to do something are different things. That's like saying you're free to kill and rape, but there will be consequences. Or even better and more relevant - "you're free not to get the covid gene-shot, but there will be consequences, chud". Would you call that freedom?
I wonder to what extend you live up to your philosophy irl? Are you a ubermensch lone wolf sigma male? Are you the master of your destiny? Are you completely independent? Do you work for yourself or for someone else?
You think being free is a right granted to you by a higher authority such as a government and that is the antithesis of Anarchism.
No, I don't do rights. You have "rights" until they are taken away by whoever gave them to you. I'm describing how society functions. It's an "is" claim not an "ought" claim. People organize in such and such fashion and every single society gives rise to hierarchies and authorities naturally. Anarchism as societal organization is a pipe dream. As I said, you can only be an anarchist by yourself (which is meaningless because anarchism presupposes you live in society).
Let's say hypothetically you are a republican, if a Democrat (I use these terms very loosely as does modern political discourse) president is elected that doesn't mean you are a Democrat. Anarchy is an ideology that postulates no government is legitimate nor does its authority derive from a legitimate source if that government does not have consent of the governed. Which can be revoked at any time by the governed, those the government rely upon to legitimize their authority. You can be whatever ideology you choose within whatever society you find yourself in. What you identify as does not dictate your surroundings. In my experience outside the ivory towers that guard unworldly unknowing Americans there is one law, either you have the gun or someone has a gun on you. That's why I choose to be an anarchist because the people who are called politicians have a sole interest of enriching themselves and they are clearly not very good at hiding it. We are smarter than those that make decisions for us and I don't know about you but that has been the case the majority of my life.
That's literally what democracy looks like on paper. The governed give their consent by voting for the people who govern. It can be revoked by voting against those people and if they don't comply, the voters can get their arms and drag them out by force. What does anarchy bring to the table except sounding cool to teenagers groing through their rebel phase and 20-something edgelords who red a bit of Nietzsche and nihilist degenerates like Bakunin and Proudhon (I bet 99.99% of self-proclaimed anarchists have never heard of those guys).
Besides I have a strong dislike for the word consent these days. It has strong SJW soycuck undertones. It sounds weak and effeminate like the feminized culture it comes from - hardly any ubermensch vibes to it. What do people, who have power over you care if you consent or not? No one will ask you for consent in an anarchy, are you kidding me? This is the same lolbert bs like the non-aggression principle. Why should I care for your principle in a society where no rules are in place?