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:
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?
Ideally, democracy is a system that uses the opinion of collective whereas anarchy is about individual choice.
That's where democracy fails. There's a lot of idiots who can be easily swayed by bright colors and catchy slogans
That's not revoking the consent of the governed or declaring the governments authority illegitimate. That's being complicit in the governments actions even if the person you voted for loses. You cannot vote your way out of tyranny, by voting at all you are legitimizing the governments authority. Why do you think there's gates around the White House? 🤣
That's just preposterous. As if the modern use of the word distorts it. The etymology of consent. Recorded in Middle English since circa 1225, borrowed from Old French consentir, from Latin cōnsentīre, present active infinitive of cōnsentiō (“to agree; to assent, consent”), itself from com- (“with”) + sentiō (“to feel”)
I think that's a personal problem believing words have feelings to them instead of explicit meanings. If you want to know where those feelings are coming from you only need to look in the mirror. I suppose someone whose relied upon the illusory safety the government provides would have trouble seeing the benefits of being in control of your own life. We are looking at it from vastly different perspectives. I'm looking at it as a soldier and you are looking at it as a threat to the comfortable bubble you've resided in your entire life.
Are you stupid? I addressed that here:
Sun Tzu and Nietzsche didn't live in lawless anarchical societies but in highly organized hierarchical societies. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and modern day intelligence services find ways to game the system and outsmart their opponents. You can't be a great chess player without following the rules of chess.
Wtf geopolitics has to do with anarchy? Warfare is an abstraction. We have warfare because we have societies, that are organized hierarchically the same way an individual is (you have a head, arms, body, etc). In order to get to that level of abstracted aggression we must first observe how aggression is dealt with within society on individual level. Can you defeat a stronger opponent using your cunning? Yes, you can (like King David did for example). But that means in an anarchy you'll always have to be on your guard and ready to defend yourself (or attack) because it's free for all and there's no authority that will prevent or curb aggression.
Blah blah blah you have nothing interesting to say.
Lol, I know more about the history of revolutions than you will in your lifetime and you're coming at me with some normie slogans which is supposed to counter what I said? There were rebellions throughout history, but the revolutionary ethos, the overthrowing of monarchies, the social contract, the concept of civil rights, individualism and anarchy itself as a reactionary offshoot from the French commune are all strictly European enlightenment ideas.
Do yourself a favor and read Fire in the minds of man
It's the smart that are able to win in a rule-based society because they can outsmart the rules. In your pipe dream that's not the case and you will get shafted by the stronger guy regardless of how smart you are. You are presupposing an already developed rule-based society and that's understandable because one can't even imagine what the opposite would be like apart from devolving into murderous savagery.
I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about by espousing the belief it's the strong that survive outside of a rules based society. What in the fuck do you think warfare is?
Edit: I was going to leave that as a question for you but you have no fuckin idea what you are talking about.
"All warfare is based on deception." Sun Tzu
Not brute force, intelligence. Just ask the Nazis or the Japanese or The US during Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Learn something before you start to identify with your ignorance and close your mind to reality.
As if people in the Middle ages consented to being governed. Come on, man (in JB's voice). It's a relatively new concept in the context we're talking about - since about the time the US were established. And yes, I believe secular humanism and classical liberalism are faulty to begin with and logically lead to the cucked corporate pseudo-democracy we live in today.
I don't believe words have feelings to them, you're strawmaning me. I was rather concrete in pointing the meaning of the word used in political discourse. You also falsely assume that because I'm tearing down your pipe dream of anarchist society (outside of being reactionary in another form of society), I'm somehow in favor of democracy when both come from the same revolutionary enlightenment ethos. It's a false dialectic - what I'm trying to get across to you is by embracing anarchism you're no better than the normie libtards and lolberts. I'm sorry your system doesn't work in practice. At least some semblance of democracy is being enacted all over the world regardless of how corrupted and demented the system is.
All your sophistry aside, the problem still stands - you can't appeal to "muh consent" in a society of ubermensch where everyone does what they want because someone stronger will come to you and he will beat you up, steal your stuff and rape you without asking for your consent, just because he can (who's gonna stop him?) and he feels like it.
Are you a bot? Unaware of Rebellions and Revolutions? It's not the strong, it's the smart that win. But you clearly don't know shit about history or the meaning of words. I'm done talking to you child.